PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for the relief of issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order/letter dated 13.04.2011 issued by the Additional Director General of Police, who is arrayed as the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. By the impugned order dated 13.04.2011 (Annexure P-8), 3rd respondent has given certain directions to all the District Police chiefs (Police Commissioners, all Senior Superintendents of Punjab, in response to a complaint from Mr. Dalip Bhanot claiming to be a President of Light Sound & DJ Association, Amritsar (Punjab). The complaint is purported to have been made against the employees of the petitioner-Company pleading for suitable action on the ground that the members of the complainant's association are being harassed by the petitioner for making false complaints as though their (DJs') public performances constitute violation of some copyrights claimed by the petitioner-Company. The impugned order records the complaint of the DJ Association that in several cases, criminal actions are being pursued at the instance of the petitioner without appropriate verification whether there had been any violation of copyrights and the 3rd respondent has, therefore, observed as under:

(2.) I may state even at the outset that in so far as the letter states that the police will lodge FIRs only after verifying all facts and not under any pressure by the petitioner-Company, there cannot be a cause for any grievance. The whole case must be only examined from the perspective of whether the members of DJ Association would require any licence, for, the letter states that the petitioner should present the case before the Government and must wait for directions, as if to suggest that even if the petitioner lodges a complaint for copyright violation, no action could be initiated till the government signals approbation. III. A brief survey of the provisions under the Copyrights Act that the petition traverses

(3.) The petition details the powers which the petitioner enjoys under the Copyright Act by express references to the definitions contained under Section 2 (xx) defining "sound recordings", Section 2 (ff) defining "communication to the public", Section 2(y) defining "work", Section 34 defining "the power to administer the right of owners of the work", Section 51 defining the circumstances when copyright could be said to be infringed, Section 63 that refers to offences of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act, and Section 64 that empowers the police to seize infringing copies and the exclusive privilege registered to the registered society to grant any right to sound recordings by license by virtue of Sections 30, 33 and 34 and the compliance that the impugned letter cast of new requirement of having to satisfy the Government and explained the stand in order that the police takes appropriate action even in cases where violation of copyright assured.