HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3459 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.685 of 2007 now stands registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 I.P.C and Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial of Video Piracy Cases, Criminal Court building Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad so far as Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) is concerned. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the accused, the second respondent company is the de-facto complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the calendar case. 3. The allegations leveled against the accused by the prosecution are that he involved in manufacturing of compressors and pistons in his unit at Gandhinagar, Vijayawada by using the trade mark of the de- facto complainant and he further involved in selling the products as genuine products in the public and thereby committed the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that in order to attract Section 63 of the Act, Section 14 of the Act which defines what is meant by Copyright is to be satisfied and in-fact it only deals with the question of doing or authorizing to do the acts mentioned therein which does not cover the question of manufacture of the said products and hence accordingly the proceedings are to be quashed so far as that provision is concerned. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the petition. 6. The point for consideration is :Whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings so far as Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 is concerned? 7. POINT:- Section 14 of the Act provides that for the purpose of the same Act, Copy Right means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of the Act to do or authorize the doing of a work or any substantial part thereof notified thereunder. It does not cover the question of manufacturing of any compressors and pistons. IN-fact it covers various other products. Therefore the accused is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act. 8. For the reasons stated above, the contention of the accused is upheld. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.685 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial of Video Piracy Cases, Criminal Court building Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad insofar as Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 are quashed whereas the prosecution can proceed against the accused with regard to the other alleged offences. If the alleged acts of manufacturing the compressors and pistons using the trademark of the de- facto complainant and selling them in the market attract any other penal provisions, the same shall be added and accordingly the accused shall be prosecuted. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 02-09-2011. vjl