Gajulapalli Mallikarjuna Prasad was convicted by the trial court and appellate court for offences under Sections 63, 65 and 68A of the Copyright Act, 1957 after police, on 18.07.2000, seized a large number of pirated audio cassettes and duplication equipment from his shop in Proddatur following a complaint by PW-1, an authorised investigator of Indian Music Industry (IMI).
The petitioner challenged the concurrent convictions in revision before the Andhra Pradesh High Court contending that no copyright holder was examined, no copyright certificates were produced, seizure was defective and ingredients of Sections 52A and 68A were not proved.
The High Court upheld the conviction holding that PW-1 was duly authorised by IMI (comprising major music companies), his testimony and the notarised authorisation sufficiently established the right to complain, the seized cassettes lacked the mandatory particulars required under Section 52A(1) (name/address of maker, copyright owner and year of publication), the seizure was duly proved through the mediator (PW-2), and the unexplained possession of pirated cassettes and machinery sufficiently established infringement under Sections 63 and 65;
The court distinguished the Kerala High Court judgments relied upon by the petitioner and declined probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. as the petitioner was engaged in commercial piracy and was above 25 years of age at the time of offence. Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed.
Points of Law Settled:
An authorised representative of a collective body like Indian Music Industry (IMI), armed with proper authorisation from member copyright owners, is competent to lodge complaint and depose regarding infringement without individual copyright holders being examined (Para 6, 9).
For proving offence under Section 68A r/w Section 52A(1) of the Copyright Act, it is sufficient to show that the seized sound recordings do not display the name/address of the person who made the recording, name/address of the copyright owner and year of first publication; specific proof of each missing particular on every cassette is not required when the overall evidence establishes the violation (Para 10). -11).
Unexplained possession of large quantities of pirated cassettes together with duplication machinery is sufficient to establish knowing infringement under Section 63 and possession of plates for making infringing copies under Section 65 of the Copyright Act (Para 7-8).
Case Title: Gajulipalli Mallikarjuna Prasad Vs State of A.P: 03 December 2025: Criminal Revision Case No.1840 of 2008:APHC010327112008 High Court of Andhra Pradesh:Hon’ble Sri Justice Subhendu Samanta
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
