Pandurangan vs Govinda Iyer

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—P.W. 1 is the complainant. His grievance is that Ex. P. 1 in the form known as ''certificate of landed property'' which

he has been printing since 1960 is printed and sold by the petitioner. He claimed that he devised this form so as to be intelligible even to ordinary

people. I do not find any extraordinary genius or cleverness in devising this form, for it is a total copying of the same printed form in the official

gazette. In his evidence, he further states that he divided Ex. P. 1 No doubt, Ex. P. 1 contains the Tamil translation under each head containing

particulars in English language, for example, the name of the applicant; P.W. 1. seems to have translated it as ""Manudhar Peyar."" His further

evidence is that the accused-petitioner infringed his copyright by publishing Ex. P. 5 forms. It is true the petitioner was selling forms like Ex. P. 5

The Sub Inspector also secured a similar form like the one found in Exs, P. 1 and P. 5, namely Ex. P. 8, Exs. P. 5 and P. 8 do not contain the

printer''s name. But Ex. P. 1 contains the name of the publishing services bureau with address. It emerges from the evidence that the form

''Certificate of landed property'' is printed in English in the Fort St. George Gazette.

The ''original literary work'' within the meaning of Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, can be claimed in relation to the mere translation only

found under these 8 headings found in form Ex. P. 1. I do not find any evidence in proof of the fact that the accused-petitioner infringed the

copyright of the complainant-respondent by publishing Ex. P. 5 forms. His own plea is that he was securing these forms for purposes of selling in

Villupuram. There is no evidence in proof of the forms like Exs. P. 5 and P. 8 being surreptitiously printed and published by the accused-petitioner.

When once it is proved that the petitioner sells any infringing copies of the work, Section 51 of the Central Act XIV of 1957 creates a legal fiction

that copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed. Undoubtedly, there is the evidence of P.W. 3 that the petitioner was selling forms like Ex.

P. 1 when he secured Ex. P. 8. I am unable to see any ""original literary work'' in this Tamil translation. Even assuming there is some wonderful

piece of translation in Ex. P. 1 devised by the complainant so as to bring it within the meaning of ''original literary work'', even then I am of the view

that Section 52 of the said Act mentions a catalogue of acts which would not constitute infringement of copyright. I lay particular emphasis on the

material portion of Section 52(1)(q)(i) which reads as under:

Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.

(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright namely:�

(q) the reproduction or publication, of (i) any matter which has been published in any official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature; ....

Undoubtedly Ex. P. 1 as proved by the defence, contains the ""certificate of landed property"" at page 501 of the Fort, St. George Gazette dated

31st May 1967. The said certificate can be brought under ""any matter which has been published in any official gazette"". Therefore, the

reproduction of the publication of the same is an Act which shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright. In view of the Tamil translation

found in Ex. P.I, ''certificate of landed property'' which I have assumed to be a ""original literary work the question is whether Section 52(2) of the

said Act would apply to the facts of this case. Undoubtedly, the terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 52 would render, the provisions of Sub-

section (1) covered by ""any act in relation to the translation of a literary ... or the adaptation of a literary ... work as they apply in relation to the

work itself"" applicable. In my view, when once the translation is deemed to constitute not an infringement of the copyright, in view of the combined

reading of Section 52 (I) and (2), I hold that no offence has been proved against the petitioner. He is acquitted of the offence u/s 63 of Central Act

14 of 1957. The fine, if paid by him, is directed to be returned to the petitioner.