The Kerala High Court opined by the Court that Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-bailable and cognizable offence.
It was noted that the prima facie opinion of the Investigation Officer showed that there was a similarity between ’Navarasam’ and ‘Varaharoopam’. As per the report, ‘Varaharoopam’ was a plagiarized and pirated version of ’Navarasam’.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail can only be granted after imposing the condition that Petitioner cannot be allowed to exhibit ‘Kantara’ along with the music ‘Varaharoopam’ till the adjudication by the competent civil court.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioners were accused under Section 63 of the Copyright Act as they used the music of ’Navarasam’ exhibited in Kappa TV owned by Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. performed by Thaikkudam Bridge Band by including the same music ‘Varaharoopam’ in a Kannada movie titled as ‘Kantara’ and produced by Accused No.1, directed and acted by Accused No. 3.
Hence, the Petitioners have preferred anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was alleged that the Petitioner never exhibited the song ’Navarasam’ in ‘Kantara’ in the name ‘Varaharoopam’ in any form. ‘Varaharoopam’ was asserted to be an independent creation.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that similarities have been noticed between ’Navarasam’ and ‘Varaharoopam’. Hence, the arrest and interrogation of the Petitioner was a must.
Observations of the Court:
It was firstly opined by the Court that Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-bailable and cognizable offence.
It was noted that the prima facie opinion of the Investigation Officer showed that there was a similarity between ’Navarasam’ and ‘Varaharoopam’. As per the report, ‘Varaharoopam’ was a plagiarized and pirated version of ’Navarasam’. Hence, it was held that a detailed investigation is a must in the present case.
It was enunciated by the Bench that infringement of copyright is a serious offence. Further, an infringer cannot be allowed to continue with the infringement and get the benefit of the same, especially when the owner of the copyright spends time, effort, and money to get the subject copyrighted.
It was observed that in the present matter, civil proceedings though initiated have been stalled due to the issue of jurisdiction. Hence, the High Court noted that anticipatory bail can only be granted after imposing the condition that Petitioner cannot be allowed to exhibit ‘Kantara’ along with the music ‘Varaharoopam’ till the adjudication by the competent civil court.
The Decision of the Court:
Based on the abovementioned findings, the application for anticipatory bail was allowed with certain conditions.
Case Title: Vijay Kirgandur & Anr. V. State of Kerala & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen
Case No: Bail Appl No. 759 of 2023
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Anoop V. Nair, E. Adithyan, Rohan Mammen Roy
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments