- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1446 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1446 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1446 OF 2007 1.Shakuntaladevi 2.M/s.Prachar Communications Ltd. ...Petitioners vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.M/s.M.R.Productions Pvt.Ltd. 3.National Film Development Corpn.Ltd. 4.Ravi Malik, Ex-General Manager National Film Development Corpn.Ltd. 5.Mr.S.D.Pai, Deputy General Manager National Film Development Corpn.Ltd. 6.Mr.P.R.Harish,Deputy General Manager, National Film Development Corpn.Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the petitioners Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for State Ms Deepa Bajaj for Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 31,2008 : JULY 31,2008 : JULY 31,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate appearing for the petitioners. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the petitioners have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 11th July 2007 passed by the Sessions Court in a revision application filed by the second Respondent. 2. The second Respondent is the original complainant. The second Respondent filed a complaint alleging offence under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 15th June 2006 dismissed the complaint under section 203 - 2 - of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. A Revision application was filed by the second Respondent for challenging the said order. The said revision application has been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by remanding the complaint back to the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance of the case under appropriate sections in accordance with law. 3. According to the case of the second Respondent, the said company was holding copyrights in respect of various Hindi feature films, the names of which are set out in the complaint. It is the case of the second respondent that the said company has not been parted with telecast rights for D.D.International Channel in respect of the said film to anyone including the 5th accused Shakuntaladevi (the first petitioner herein). The National Film Development Corporation Limited has been arraigned as the first accused in the complaint. The second to fourth accused in the said complaint were allegedly the officers of the accused No.1. It is alleged that the accused No.5 i.e. the first petitioner is connected with the accused No.6 (second petitioner herein). It is stated that the second petitioner was engaged in the business of telecasting films relating to Doordarshan. 4. The allegation in the complaint is that with common intention of causing wrongful gain for themselves, 8 films - 3 - were telecasted by the accused on D.D. International Channel without obtaining any consent of any nature from the second Respondent-complainant. A letter was written by the second Respondent-complainant to the D.D.International Channel calling for its explanation. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the first accused (National Film Development Corporation Ltd.). The third accused on behalf of the first accused replied to the said letter informing that the first accused had acquired the rights in respect of the films from the first Petitioner who was operating on behalf of the second petitioner. Accordingly, the second Respondent addressed a letter to the first petitioner and called upon her to furnish the documents by virtue of which she claimed rights of telecast. According to the second respondent, further correspondence reveals that in fact the accused Nos.1 to 3 indulged in telecasting the films though the first petitioner had not supplied to the said accused the documents on which she was claiming the rights in respect of the said films. In fact, the first accused came out with a case that the said accused had written letters to the first petitioner calling upon her to supply the documents. In the complaint a reference has been made to the correspondence exchanged between the second respondent and the accused persons. According to the second respondent, at no point of time, the second respondent had authorised the first accused to telecast the film in question. The second petitioner came out with a - 4 - case that it was not concerned with the telecast of the films. It is alleged that though the first petitioner claimed that she had acquired telecast rights in respect of the said film from one Jayant Chheda, no documents were produced in that behalf. It was contended by the first petitioner that it had acquired rights from the second Respondent. 5. The verification statement of one Mohammed Riyas was recorded by the learned Magistrate. As pointed out earlier, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint in exercise of power under section 203 of the said Code and the said order has been set aside in a Revision Application filed by the second Respondent. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the D.D.International Channel has telecasted the film on the basis of the rights granted by the first accused and in fact in the complaint, no role has been attributed to the petitioners. He submitted that there are no specific assertions in the complaint regarding role of the petitioners and essentially the complaint is based on the dispute between the second Respondent and the first accused. He submitted that even going by the verification statement of the second respondent, no offence was made out against the petitioners and in any case, there was no material on record to proceed against the petitioners. - 5 - 7. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have considered the annexures to the petition and other relevant documents placed on record by the parties. I have also perused the Judgment of the Sessions Court. Reliance has been placed by the second Respondent on voluminous correspondence between the parties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that there were some documents shown by the first petitioner (5th accused) to Respondent Nos.3 to 6 purporting to be the rights of assignment. It has been found that on the basis of the said documents, the first petitioner had entered into the agreement and derived the benefits under the agreement. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that there was material on record to proceed against the petitioners and other accused for commission of offences under section 463, 465, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 63 and 68 of the Copyrights Act,1957. It must be stated that the learned Judge of the Sessions Court has observed that there was a strong case for taking cognizance of the complaint under section 463, 465, 120-B read with section 63 and 68 of the Copyrights Act,1957. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on considering all the averments made in the complaint and entire material placed on record found that a case was made out for proceeding against the petitioners for offence under section 463, 465, - 6 - 120-B r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Judge did not accept the case made out for offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 and 120-B. It is pertinent to note that the Sessions Court has not accepted that there was a case made out under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the operative part of the impugned order of the Sessions Court is not very clear, it is obvious that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed the Trial Court to proceed with the complaint only in so far as the offences under sections 463, 465, 120-B r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 63 and 68 of the Copyrights Act are concerned. 9. At this stage, a detailed enquiry or scrutiny of the record is not expected. Suffice it to say that the material on record is sufficient to proceed against the petitioner as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, no case is made out for interference with the impugned Judgment and Order of the Sessions Court. Subject to clarification issued above, petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE