SUNIL KUMAR Vs. MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Garware Plastics & Polyster Ltd, v. M/s. Telelink, 1989 AIR(Bom) 331. J. N. Bagga v. AIR Ltd., 1969 AIR(Bom) 302.

(2.) Petitioner is a producer of a Malayalam Movie by name "Malabaril Ninnoru Manimaran". Petitioner filed a complaint against first respondent. M/s. Malayalam Communications Limited, a company of which third respondent is the Managing Director. Second respondent is a Television Channel, a unit of first respondent being run under the control and supervision of respondents 3 and 4. Fifth respondent is the Production Executive who is responsible for the selection and telecast of various programmes and movies through the second respondent Channel. Sixth respondent is a Film Laboratory at Chennai and 7th respondent is its Managing Director, who is responsible for the day to day affairs and conduct of the 6th respondent.

(3.) In the complaint it was averred that second respondent without any authority had telecasted the Malayalam Movie "Malabaril Ninnoru Manimaran" at 2.00 p. m. on 15.9.2005 and thereby violated the satellite right of the said Movie and hence respondents are liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 63, 65, 68 and 69 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and Sections 403, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 109, 120(B) read with 34 IPC. Learned Magistrate took a view that if it is held that the court situated at the place wherein the film in question was telecasted will have jurisdiction to try the case, all courts in India will have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. It was further held that the film in question was telecasted from Thiruvananthapuram and head office of second respondent is also at Thiruvananthapuram and the accused are residing within the territorial limits of the courts at Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam and Chennai. It was also held that Chief Judicial Magistrate Courtl at Kozhikode has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and dismissed the complaint.