GARAPATI PRASADA RAO Vs. PARNANDI SAROJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused No. 2 in C.C. 70/1990 on the file of the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent filed a complaint under section 52-A, 63 and 68-A of the Indian Copy Right Act 1957 against the petitioner (accused No. 2) and two others who are shown as respondents 2 and 3 in the petition.

(2.) The brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of this petition are as follows :- The complainant (1st respondent) was the author of the story of T.V. serial by name 'Himabindu' telecast by the Duradarshan Kendra, Hyderabad in Telugu in 13 episodes. Due to the fact that the serial evoked lot of interest in the viewers, it was decided to extend it by another 13 episodes. But the complainant's case is that she was not asked to write the story for the extended 13 episodes. It was got written by some other person and the extended 13 episodes were telecast under the same name, same theme and characters. She therefore filed the complaint against the petitioner who is the producer of the serial (A-2), the 3rd accused who is the Director and A1 the Director of Duradarshan Kendra. This petition is filed by the second accused under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant had written the story for the first 13 episodes and that was telecast and there is no dispute about that. As regards the extended 13 episodes she is not the author of that story but somebody else wrote it and she therefore cannot complain that none-else should write the story in the extended episodes because he has no copy right for the ideas or theme or characters. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant i.e. 1st respondent pointed out that the story Himabindu had a particular theme i.e. a lady who on coming to know about social injustice was trying to rectify it and this became very popular among the T.V. viewers and an award was also given to the author i.e. the complainant for the story. She, therefore, contended that the complainant has got copyright both in the name of the serial i.e. 'Himabindu', the theme and also in the characters and when the accused got the extended episodes written by somebody else with the same theme and telecast under the same name, her copyright is infringed. The learned counsel for the complainant had pointed out that there are other violations also i.e. the 13th episode written by the complainant was distorted which is also an offence and that her name was not shown in the extended serial which also constitutes an offence.