- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chitra Narain Petitioner v. Ndtv And Others S
Judgment Summary — J.D. Kapoor, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, Mrs. Chitra Narain (formerly Chief Producer of All India Radio), filed a criminal complaint against respondents M/s NDTV, Mr. Prannoy Roy, M/s Star TV and Mr. Rupert Murdoch alleging infringement and usurpation of her copyright in a feature entitled "A National Anthem Born and Exile" broadcast on All India Radio on 23 January 1980. The complaint invoked Sections 51, 52A, 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The complaint arose from an alleged telecast by the Star channel in October/November 1997 of a special feature which, according to the petitioner, reproduced her 1980 AIR feature without credit, permission, or payment of royalties and edited out a portion in which a third party had credited the petitioner. The petitioner claimed loss of commercial opportunities and recognition.
The complaint was registered and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) conducted proceedings under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. During the inquiry the respondents appeared and, with the permission of the CMM, filed affidavits, transcripts and video material and made written submissions. The CMM ultimately dismissed the complaint without issuing process by an order dated 6.3.1999.
The petitioner challenged the CMM's order by way of the present petition. The core legal question put before the High Court concerned the propriety of permitting a person against whom a complaint has been filed to participate in a Section 202 inquiry for the purpose of adjudicating guilt prior to the issuance of process.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a Magistrate, while holding an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., can permit a person against whom a complaint is filed to participate in the proceedings for the purpose of adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of that person prior to the issuance of process.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments (as presented by Mr. Sushil Bajaj)
- It was contended that any person, including a person named as accused, has the right to watch and to participate in proceedings even at the pre-summoning stage so that frivolous complaints can be exposed at an early stage and alleged accused persons are protected from harassment.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose & Anr. (1964 1 SCR 639) to support the view that a person may be present and informed of proceedings and that this presence should include a participatory aspect to prevent harassment by frivolous complaints.
Petitioner's Arguments (as presented by Mr. Vishal Gupta)
- It was argued that mere presence of a person at an inquiry under Section 202 is distinct from permitting that person to file affidavits and written submissions or otherwise participate in a manner resembling trial-stage defence. Filing affidavits and making submissions is incompatible with the nature of a Section 202 inquiry.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Dr. S.S. Khanna v. Chief Secretary, Patna and another, AIR 1983 SC 595, which holds that inquiry under Section 202 is not a trial and that a person named in a complaint is not an accused until process is issued; such a person may be present but cannot be called upon to participate as an accused.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose & Anr., 1964 1 SCR 639 | The scheme of Chapter XVI Cr.P.C. shows that an accused does not come into picture until process is issued; while a person may be present at an inquiry, he has no right to take part in the proceedings and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to permit him to participate in a manner that affects the inquiry. | The Court cited this authority for the proposition that presence is permitted but active participation that affects the inquiry is not; it considered the decision while addressing respondents' contention that participation at pre-summoning stage is permissible to prevent harassment. |
| Dr. S.S. Khanna v. Chief Secretary, Patna and another, AIR 1983 SC 595 | Inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not a trial; a person against whom a complaint is filed does not become an accused until process is issued; participation (if any) at the inquiry-stage is only as a member of the public and such a person cannot be legally called upon to participate in the inquiry as an accused. | The Court relied on this decision to emphasise that permitting the respondents to file affidavits and make written submissions amounted to treating the inquiry as a trial and adjudicating guilt at the pre-summoning stage, which is impermissible. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by framing the central question in light of the express provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C., and answered it decisively in the negative based on the statutory text and the settled jurisprudence.
The judgment reproduced the text of Section 202 (Postponement of issue of process) and Section 200 (Examination of complainant) to show the limited purpose of the inquiry under Section 202: to decide whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and whether process should issue. The court explained that the object of the inquiry is merely to ascertain whether the complaint has a valid foundation calling for issuance of process or whether it is baseless.
After recapitulating the material facts and evidence placed before the CMM (including six witnesses examined by the complainant, documentary records, an audio cassette of the 1980 broadcast, the monograph Ex.P1, and video recordings of the 1997 telecasts), the court described the procedure adopted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate: respondents were allowed not only to be present but also to participate, file affidavits, provide transcripts and video recordings, and submit written arguments. The CMM also listened to audio and viewed video material and made comparative observations between the AIR transcript and the TV telecast.
The court analysed the competing counsel submissions and authorities. It reconciled the two Supreme Court decisions cited, extracting a set of propositions (paragraphs (i)–(vi)) which together establish that:
- An inquiry under Section 202 is not a trial and does not require adjudication of guilt.
- The presence of any person (including a person named in a complaint) is not barred, but such a person has no right to participate as an accused prior to issuance of process.
- No person not summoned as accused can produce evidence (oral or documentary), cross-examine complainant's witnesses, or require the Magistrate to put questions to witnesses on their behalf.
- Participation, if any, is akin to that of a member of the public; the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to convert the inquiry into a trial by permitting active defensive participation.
Applying these principles to the facts, the court concluded that by allowing the respondents to file affidavits and written submissions and by discussing their defence, the CMM effectively adjudicated the guilt or otherwise of the respondents at the inquiry stage — a course prohibited by Section 202. This procedural error was the basis for setting aside the impugned order.
The court therefore allowed the petition, set aside the CMM's dismissal, restored the complaint and directed that the trial court decide the matter independently of the respondents' affidavits — relying solely on the allegations in the complaint and the statements of the complainant's witnesses — and not be influenced by the observations recorded in the impugned order. The court also directed the petitioner to appear before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 23 January 2004.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 6.3.1999 is set aside and the complainant's complaint is restored and revived.
Direct consequences and practical implications:
- The CMM's dismissal of the complaint (without issuance of process) has been quashed and the complaint is restored for further proceedings.
- The trial court was directed to proceed independently of the affidavits and written submissions filed by the respondents during the Section 202 inquiry and to decide the question of issuance of process solely on the allegations in the complaint and the statements of the complainant and her witnesses.
- The petitioner was ordered to appear before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 23 January 2004 for further proceedings.
Broader legal significance: The opinion applies and reiterates existing principles governing the limited nature of Section 202 inquiries; it does not purport to create a new precedent but enforces settled law that an inquiry under Section 202 is not a trial and pre-summoning participation by a person named in a complaint cannot convert that inquiry into a trial-stage adjudication.
J.D Kapoor, J.:— The short question of law involved for determination in this petition preferred against the order dated 6.3.1999 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the complaint of the petitioner Mrs. Chitra Narain who was once the Chief Producer of the All India Radio filed against respondents - M/s. NDTV, Mr. Prannoy Roy, M/s Star TV and Mr. Rupert Murdoch was dismissed without issuing the process is as under:—
“Whether the magistrate while holding an enquiry into a complaint can permit a person against whom the complaint is filed to participate in the proceedings for the purpose of adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the person against whom the complaint is preferred.”
2. The answer lies in the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 itself and is emphatic “NO”.
3. In the instant case, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate not only allowed the respondents to watch the proceedings but also allowed them to participate, file affidavits in support of their version and also wntten submissions as if the enquiry being conducted by him under, Section 202 of Cr.P.C into allegations contained in the complaint was in the nature of a trial. The relevant extracts of Section 202 of Cr.P.C needs to be produced and are as under:—
Section 202 Postponement of issue of process-(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:
4. Another relevant provision is section 200, which provides a proce dure that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witness present, if any and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate. However, if such a complaint is filed by a public servant, the Magistrate has the discretion not to examine the complainant and the witnesses. Relevant extract reads as under:—
“ Section 200. Examination of complainant:— A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witness present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:
5. As is apparent from the aforesaid provisions, the only object of the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C is to ascertain whether the complaint has a valid foundation or ground calling for issuing the process to the person complained against or does not require any action.
6. Subsequent discussion would show that the inquiry into a complaint is not in the nature of trial as trial may commence after process is issued. Allegations contained in the complaint have to be at first instance ascertained by way of evidence produced by the complainant. The presence or participation of a person does not mean his participation by way of ascertaining his version or to adjudicate the allegations contained in the complaint. Court has to take decision whether to issue a process or not solely on the strength of allegations in the complaint and statements of complainant and witnesses and on no other material.
7. Let us examine the procedure adopted by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the light of the facts of the case, which need to be recapitulated in brief and are as under:—
“Petitioner who was the Chief Producer of All India Radio filed a complaint under Sections 51, 52A, 63, 69 of the Copyright Act of 1957 against M/s. NDTV and other respondents on the allegations that they have infringed and usurped her copy right over the feature entitled “A National Anthem Born and Exile” which was researched, written and produced by her and broadcast on the National Network of All India Radio on January 23, 1980. According to her the feature produced by the petitioner and broadcast on AIR by her sheer labour and skill was a Original Work and she had used her ingenuity and innovative traits in making the research (for over 3 years), selection and compilation of this feature. This feature was widely hailed by the press. A few of the comments by critics appearing in the leading national dailies were as follows:
“Seldom has Akashwani presented a more imaginative and ab sorbing commemorative broadcast “
“in unearthing the romantic story of the birth of our National Anthem the All India Radio has earned the gratitude of the nation and a bright feather in its cap”
“ a great deal of research had apparently been done to piece the tale together, and to verify the authenticity of the tape recording of that historic first performance, now preserved in AIR's archives...the programme held attention and was well worth sitting up till 10.40 p.m”
8. The petitioner continued to research the subject long after the broadcast and contemplated a thesis/book/film on the subject after her retirement.
9. Star channel (read respondent No. 3-accused) in its evening Hindi and English prime time news programme ‘Star News’ aired a special feature after the ‘weather report’ sometime in Oct/Nov 1997 which was nothing but the reproduction of the Petitioner's feature on the subject already broadcast on AIR on 23.1.80 That in spite of being well aware that the petitioner had researched, written and produced the feature, the respondents made no mention of the petitioner anywhere in their special feature. The respondents neither contacted the petitioner for seeking her permission or for payment of any royalty. The respondents deliberately edited the portion of the interview in which Dr. Anand, Director of National Gandhi Museum had very clearly given credit to the petitioner for the feature. After the telecast, Dr. Anand wrote a protest letter to the respondent No. 1 on the issue.
10. The respondents thus commercially benefited from the telecast of this feature (incidentally Star News is one of the most watched programs on Star TV and is commercially heavily sponsored). On the other hand the telecast in a single stroke wiped out years of petitioner's labour denying her the royalty due and extinguished business plans of the petitioner on the subject in bringing out a thesis/book/film. Moreover the respondents denied to the petitioner the recognition which she was bound to receive at national and international level in future. Thus according to the petitioner the respondents thus clearly infringed and usurped upon the copyright of the petitioner by telecasting the said feature and committed the offences punishable under Sections 51, 52A, 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
11. The complaint was registered and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate asked the complainant to lead evidence for inquiry under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C While the matter was listed for the said purpose, respondent No, 1 appeared on its own and moved an application through its counsel stating that the information about the criminal complaint had been received through newspaper reports and it requested permission for taking part in the subsequent proceedings. The Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate not only allowed the respondents to match the proceedings but they were allowed to file the affidavits, the transcripts of the two news items, arranging the video recording of the news item in question for purpose of these proceedings and even written submissions.
12. During the course of inquiry, complainant examined six witnesses including herself. In addition to the oral evidence, documentary evidence in the context of efforts during 1977-80 for discovery of facts for confirming the authenticity of the original tape of Ganpuley, the official notings in the office of Directorate General of All India Radio, the material provided by lutz from Germany, the correspondence exchanged between Dr. Y.P Anand and the complainant on one hand and Dr. Y.P Anand and authorities in All India Radio on the other, besides monograph Ex.P.1, the audio cassette containing the recording of the documentary feature aired in 1980 and video recording of the two news items telecast by accused No. 1 was brought on record.
13. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate heard the audio cassette containing the recording of documentary feature broadcast by All India Radio on 23.1.80 and confirmed the correctness of the transcript as published from page 33 to 48 in the monograph Ex.P1 Barring a few inaccuracies, the transcript was more or less true. Court saw the two impugned items in the news telecast on 17.11.97 by accused No. 1 and compared it with the transcript mark Cl-2 and mark Dl-2. The transcripts were true as per the actual telecasts.
14. Though on the face of it the procedure adopted by Ld.C.M.M was in complete violation of the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C still Mr. Sushil Bajaj, learned counsel for the respondent has tried to uphold the validity of the procedure adopted by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by contending that any person including a person arraigned as accused has a right to watch and participate in the proceedings even at pre-summoning stage so that frivolous complaint can be nipped in bud and the persons shown as accused are saved from the harassment. In support of this contention Mr. Bajaj has relied upon Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose & Anr., 1964 1 SCR 639 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:—
“ Taking the first ground, it seems to us clear from the entire scheme of Ch.XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure that an accused person does not come into the picture at all till process is issued. This does not mean that he is precluded from being present when an enquiry is held by a Magistrate. He may remain present either in person or through a counsel or agent with a view to be informed of what is going on. But since the very question for consideration being whether he should be called upon to face an accusation, he has no right to take part in the proceedings nor has the Magistrate any jurisdiction to permit him to do so. It would follow from this, therefore, that it would not be open to the Magistrate to put any question to witnesses at the instance of the person named as accused but against whom process has not been issued; nor can he examine any witness produced before him by the complainant as he may think proper in the interests of justice. But beyond that, he cannot go. It was, however, contended by Mr. Sethi for respondent No. 1 that the very object of the provisions of Ch.XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to prevent an accused person from being harassed by a frivolous complaint and, therefore, power is given to a Magistrate before whom complaint is made.”
15. On the contrary, Mr. Vishal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the presence of the accused or his participation in the proceedings is one thing and calling upon the accused at the pre-summoning stage to file affidavits and written submission is another thing and any affidavit filed by the accused is not part of the proceedings as inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C is not a trial. In support of this con tention Mr. Gupta has relied upon Dr. S.S Khanna v. Chief Secretary, Patna and another, AIR 1983 SC 595 wherein the Supreme Court has taken the following view;-
“ An inquiry under S. 202 is not in the nature of a trial for there can be in law only one trial in respect of any offence and that a trial can commence only after process is issued in the accused. The said proceedings are not, strictly proceedings between the complainant and the accused. A person against whom a complaint is filed does not become an accused until it is decided to issue process against him. Even if he participates in the proceedings under S.202 he does so not as an accused but as a member of the public. The object of the inquiry under S.202 is the ascertainment of the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation calling for the issue of process to the person complained against or whether it is a baseless one on which no action need be taken. The section does not require any adjudication to be made about the guilt or otherwise of the person against whom the complaint is preferred. Such a person cannot even be legally called to participate in the proceedings under S.202”
16. As is apparent, there is no conflict in the aforesaid judgments. Ratio of these judgments lays down the following -
(i) Section 202 Cr.P.C does not require any adjudication to be made about the guilt or otherwise of the person against whom complaint is made.
(ii) Section 202 Cr.P.C does not bar the presence of any person including a person against whom complaint has been made either in person or through counsel or his agent.
(iii) No person has a right to participate in the proceedings nor has the Magistrate power to allow him to do so as unless a person becomes accused after process is issued against him, his presence is like any member of public.
(iv) No person unless summoned as accused has a right to either produce any evidence oral or documentary nor has a right to cross-examine the witness of the complainant.
(v) Even the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to put any question to the witnesses of the complainant at the instance of such a person or a person named as accused.
(vi) Participation of a person named as accused in the proceedings is like a member of the public and not as an accused through legally such a person cannot be called upon to participate in the proceedings.
17. In nutshell, the legal position is that an inquiry under S.202 is not in the nature of a trial for there can be in law only one trial in respect of any offence and that trial can commence only after process is issued against the accused as prior to this stage, said proceedings are not strictly proceedings between the complainant and the accused. A person against whom a complaint is filed does not become an accused until court decides to issue process against him. Even if he participates in the proceedings under S.202 he does so not as an accused but as a member of the public. The object of the inquiry under S.202 is the ascertainment of the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation calling for the issue of process to the person complained against or whether it is a baseless one on which no action need be taken. The section does not require any adjudication to be made about the guilt or otherwise of the person against whom the complaint is filed. Strictly speaking such a person cannot even be legally called to participate in the proceedings under S.202
18. By allowing the respondents to file the affidavits and written submissions as to their version and discussing their defence, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has indulged in adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the respondents. Such a procedure or course is strictly prohibited by the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C
19. In view of the aforesaid legal position, petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. Complaint of the petitioner against respondents stands revived and restored. Ld. trial court is directed to decide the matter independent of the affidavits filed by the respondents and solely based upon the allegations in the complaint and statements of complainant and witnesses produced by the petitioner without being influenced by the observations of the then Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order.
20. Petitioner shall appear before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 23rd January, 2004 for the aforesaid purpose.
Alert