No Prosecution Under Copyright Act For Sale Of Duplicate Spare Parts Of Computer Hardware: Gujarat High Court

Justice Sandeep Bhatt while quashing the FIR observed, “Apart from that, even if, the FIR is taken at its face value, it refers to items, which do not fall within the artistic work as defined under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It cannot be said that the spare-part is literal work or musical work. It is not disclosed that the spare part is an artistic work or any other such work that the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957 would apply.”

“The impugned FIR also does not disclose that if respondent No.2 has acquired any other right conferred under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and therefore, provisions of Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 would not be applicable on bare reading of the allegations leveled in the First Information Report at its face value. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie no case is made out under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, even if it is taken at its face value,” Justice Bhatt added.

The above ruling came in a petition filed by one Mayur Shah, seeking quashing and setting aside of an FIR and a criminal case whereby there were allegations against the petitioner of selling duplicate spare-parts of the computer.

An FIR was lodged against him by an Investigating Officer of IPR Vigilance Indian Company.

Shah moved the High Court for quashing the FIR filed in 2014 under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act for selling computer and printer spare parts. His counsel Sachin Vasavada, contended that the Copyright Act was not applicable in the present case for sale of the spare-parts of the computers and the goods in which the petitioner deals with i.e. cartridge of printers and spare parts of computers, provisions of the Copyright Act are also not attracted at all.

Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned FIR, prima facie, the Court opined that no case was made out against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Binita Rahul Shah Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2009(3) GLR 2688, the Court was of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of law and Court. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR was quashed and set aside in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code, and the application was hereby allowed.

Appearance: Mr Sachin D Vasavada(3342) For The Applicant(S) No. 1 Mr Samrat N Mehta(3949) For The Applicant(S) No. 1 Public Prosecutor For The Respondent(S) No. 1 Rule Served For The Respondent(S) No. 2,3

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 186

Case Title: Mayur Kanaiyalal Shah Versus State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S)

Case No.: R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 3296 Of 2014

Click Here To Read The Order / Judgement