A SUSIAH Vs. S MUNISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against acquittal. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for an offence punishable under S. 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, alleging that the respondent had infringed his copyright in what he claimed as a literary work called "topics in World History" of which he along with one Mr. S. Rajendran were joint authors. This work was first published by the appellant and mr. Rajendran in 1957; but two other editions of the same work are said to have been published by the respondent, one printed at Vasu Press, Triplicane, and the other, at the Midland Printers, Vepery, Madras. The appellant contended that since the respondent infringed the copyright he committed an offence under S. 63 and that the infringing copies are liable to be seized under S. 64 of the Act.

(2.) THE Seventh Presidency Magistrate who tried the case found that "the topics in World History" is an original literary work and that the respondent had reprinted the book at Vasu Press of P. W. 2 and also at the Midland Printers of P. W. 3. The plea of the respondent was that the joint author of the work, Rejendran, had permitted him to reprint the book and therefore, he had not infringed any copyright. The respondent also examined himself as D. W. 2 and stated inter alia that he had met the appellant in 1961 and he had agreed to his publishing the book. The learned magistrate does not appear to have very much relied upon this plea. On the other hand, he seems to have considered the question and decided the case from the point of view of the rights of one of the joint authors to sustain a criminal action for infringement. According to him the Act sets out a clear distinction between civil and criminal remedies. It is only where a party wants to seek his remedy in a Civil Court, it is not incumbent on him to make the joint owner a party to such suit. But this remedy is not specifically mentioned in chapter XIII of the Act, so that when a person has to seek his remedy in a criminal Court he has to implead the joint author as well. He further observed that the right claimed by the appellant is an individual one which cannot be demarcated and that when a person is prosecuted for infringement of a copy-right, it must be established that the complainant has absolute right over the copyright. On this reasoning, he took the view that the appellant, by himself, could not have taken action against the respondent criminally and that the joint author Rajendran should also have been impleaded in the action. The acquittal of the respondent was based mainly on this line of reasoning.

(3.) I am afraid, the aforesaid view of the trial magistrate is not supportable on a reading of the relevant provisions of the Act. Ch. XI of the Act deals with infringement of copyright; and on the facts proved in this case it can hardly be contended that there was no infringement of the work in the absence of a licence, in writing, granted by the owners of the copyright when the work in question has been found to be a literary work. Two kinds of remedies are made available in respect of such infringement; one civil and the other criminal and they are dealt with in Ch. XII and XIII under headings "civil Remedies" and "offences".