THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1873 of 2009 ORDER:- Petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.948 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for Video Piracy Cases at Hyderabad. He filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in the said case against him. 2. The de facto complainant i.e. the 2nd respondent herein is a film production company called M/s Sai Sarvajith Movies and it is represented by its Managing partner-E.Ranga Rao. It is seen from the allegations in the charge sheet that it has produced a feature film called ‘Vijayadasami’. It is also seen from the record that on 03.05.2007, the de facto complainant entered into an agreement with M.Sandeep Chowdary-A1 to whom it assigned certain rights in respect of the said feature film. The version of the prosecution is that subsequently Sandeep Chowdary-A1 gave away the rights to A2- petitioner herein to make out CDs and DVDs of the film and sell them in the market in violation of the terms of the above agreement though he had no such right. The allegations are mentioned in detail in the charge sheet. The offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 63 A, 68 of the Copy Rights Act and Section 420 IPC. 3. The main plea of the petitioner is that under the assignment agreement dated 03.05.2007 A1 is entitled to sell his rights to make out DVD or CDs of the feature film in question and therefore the present case is not maintainable. On the other hand the prosecution version is that A1 has no such right and therefore he has committed the offences mentioned above. 4. Sri K.Anup Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon Clause 14 of the agreement dated 03.05.2007 and it ofcourse reads that the assignee i.e. A1 shall be entitled to assign his rights under the agreement in part or in full to any other party at his sole and absolute discretion and the assignor shall not have the right to claim for any revenue or consideration received by the assignee. He says that Clause 14 permits A1 to grant his right to make DVD or CDs of the feature film in question and therefore no offence is made out. 5. It may however be noted that Clause 1 of the agreement reads that the de facto complainant has assigned to A1 the sole and exclusive right of only broadcasting the feature film in question through any Satellite system and various other modes which are mentioned in Clause I. The question now is whether Clause 14 supports the case of A1 and whether Clause 14 is controlled by Clause I, which speaks of only broadcasting or telecasting rights. Thus, prima facie the matter involves interpretation of the Clauses in the above document/agreement and those aspects have to be decided in evidence that may be let in by the prosecution and thus the above questions fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact. 6. In the above circumstances, it is difficult to accept the petitioner’s contention that no offence can be said to have been made out against him only by means of Clause 14 of the agreement. In view of this, I am of the opinion that this petition should fail and it is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that it shall be open to the petitioner to raise all his pleas before the trial Court, including the filing of a discharge application. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 09th December, 2011 Tsy