MOHAMMEDKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 4th accused in C.C. No. 85 of 2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.") with the following prayer:

(2.) Averments, in brief, are as follows: Petitioner is the Chairman of M/s. Kairali TV, a unit of M/s. Malayalam Communications Limited, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Annexure-I is the complaint. The original complainant died pending the proceedings. His son is continuing the prosecution. It is alleged in the complaint that the original complainant was the proprietor of M/s. Vinodh Movies, a concern engaged in the production and distribution of feature films in various languages. Original complainant was the producer, negative right holder and original copy right owner of various rights of the Malayalam feature film by name, 'Thekkekara Super Fast'. The original complainant purchased the title of the film by a valid assignment. Thereafter, the original complainant assigned exclusive copy right in respect of world satellite television broadcast, direct satellite broadcast, terrestrial televisions broadcast, etc. to M/s. Gee Bee Videos, Flat No. B/I C, Garden Court Apartments, Alinchuvadu, Palarivattom, Kochi-24 for valid consideration. The original complainant saw an advertisement in the 3rd accused channel regarding the telecasting of the film 'Thekkekara Super Fast' on 14.04.2005, Vishu day. Immediately, he contacted the assignee of the satellite channel rights, M/s. Gee Bee Videos and enquired about the matter. It was informed that they did not sell the rights to any of the accused. The original complainant immediately contacted accused 2, 4 and 5 and informed the true facts. They were requested not to telecast the said film through 3rd accused channel. But, they in utter disregard to the request of the original complainant, telecasted the film. It is also alleged in the complaint that the accused have created false documents and, therefore, they are liable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Accused persons, including the petitioner, have violated the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. Hence, they are liable to be prosecuted under Sections 109, 465, 468, 471, 474, 417, 420, 379 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 63, 65, 68 and 69 of the Copyright Act.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor is also heard.