https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280670 The article explains that, in prosecutions involving video films under the Copyright Act, liability can arise from publication or exhibition without the particulars mandated by Section 52A, and proof of the copyright owner's identity is not always indispensable on those facts. Reading Sections 51, 52A, 63 and 68A together, it states that the special prohibition aimed at piracy of video films and sound recordings can support conviction even where the owner is not separately proved. It further notes that conduct involving keeping and exhibiting video cassettes without the required particulars was treated as falling under Section 68A, justifying alteration of the conviction from Section 63. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 May 2019 11:31:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280670 The article explains that, in prosecutions involving video films under the Copyright Act, liability can arise from publication or exhibition without the particulars mandated by Section 52A, and proof of the copyright owner's identity is not always indispensable on those facts. Reading Sections 51, 52A, 63 and 68A together, it states that the special prohibition aimed at piracy of video films and sound recordings can support conviction even where the owner is not separately proved. It further notes that conduct involving keeping and exhibiting video cassettes without the required particulars was treated as falling under Section 68A, justifying alteration of the conviction from Section 63. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280670