AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sibility of collecting the royalties and hand over the requisite share to him. However, M/s IPRS has failed to pay the royalties to him. It was also alleged in the complaint that he regularly demanded the said payments, but no satisfactory replies were received from the authorized persons of the said organization. Even his name was deleted unilaterally from the membership of M/s. IPRS with the intention not to pay the amount due to him. His apprehension is that M/s IPRS has collected the royalty amount for the literary work done by him and the same must have been spent for the benefit of unknown person(s). Therefore, he felt that he was cheated by the M/s IPRS. In the complaint, it is also stated that there may be so many members who have also been cheated in the similar manner. 3. In view of the compliant made by Shri Surendra Sathi for nonpayment of royalty due to him, S/Shri Hasan Kamal & Omprakash Sonik both directors of M/s. IPRS and others were charged under section 120B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 and 34 of the IPC, 1860 in the Sadar Police Station, Agra and a FIR 455/2014 dated 02.06.2014 was registered against Shri Hasan Kamal & Shri Omprakash Sonik both Directors of M/s IP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssuance of license for a period of three years. By that agreement, M/s PPL granted rights to M/s SMHPL for issuance of sub-licence of the musical rights to TV broadcasters. The musical rights are inclusive of the rights pertained to sound track (members of PPL i.e. musical companies) and musical Literary works which belonged to the Author (lyricists), Composer (Music Directors). The agreement was executed for the period of three years upto 31.12.2010. (vi) Thereafter, by MOU dated 29.12.2010 between M/s SMHPL and M/s PPL, the agreement dated 29.01.2008 to sub-licence the musical rights to TV broadcasters was renewed for the period of 3 years, i.e. upto 31.12.2013. The musical rights which was inclusive of the rights pertained to sound track (PPL) and musical Literary works (IPRS) was renewed in toto, except for the changes in monetary consideration for a period of 3 years, i.e. 31.12.2013. (vii) In view of the agreement executed between M/s PPL and M/s SMHPL, M/s SMHPL paid to M/s PPL the following amount on account of royalty payable to the members of M/s PPL as well as M/s. IPRS for licensing musical rights to TV Broadcasters for the calendar year 2008 to 2013. Calendar Year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pursuant to the filing of complaint entertained the requisite belief and ordered on 04.07.2016 issuance of notice to show cause dated 06.07.2016 which was served on the Defendants/respondents herein interalia directing them to appear before the authority on 22.08.2016 and show cause in terms of the Notice. The Defendants/respondent appeared in the matter from time to time on 22.08.2016, 28.09.2016, 20.10.2016 and 25.10.2016. 11. The hearing in the matter was concluded on 01.11.2016 and on 25.11.2016, the impugned order was passed whereby the O.C. was rejected by the detailed order which was challenged by the present appellant interalia on various grounds. 12. We have heard the appeal at the admission stage itself. The learned counsel for the parties addressed their submissions and the order was reserved. Before dealing with the case of the appellant, it is necessary to deal with the case of respondent which was pleaded before the Adjudicating Authority. 13. It appears from the pleading that the role of M/s Indian Performing Rights Society (hereinafter referred to as „M/s. IPRS‟) is another Copyright Society. The members of M/s. IPRS are mainly music publishers who a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2013) vide MoU dated 29.12.2010 whereby no rights in respect of works owned by authors (as upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court) were specifically granted. 16. The allegations made by Mr. Surinder Sathi were that he is a lyricist, who filed Complaint at PS Sadar, Agra, stating that he allegedly became a member of IPRS in 1994 and in due course, rights over 37 of his lyrical works want to IPRS. It is alleged that Surinder Sathi became entitled to receive Royalty from IPRS in lieu of the above assignments. He further claims to have indeed received some Royalty from IPRS earlier. The exact amount of Royalty due to Mr. Sathi has neither been specified by him anywhere in his complaint nor has the Police arrived at or computed any specific amount in its investigations, as is evidenced from the Charge-Sheet. 17. In nut-shell, the complaint made by Shri Surender Sathi is that he was not paid part royalty amount and his membership was wrongly cancelled once he demanded his remaining royalty from the respondent who have also not paid royalty to the other artists. 18. The complaint of Mr. Sathi was converted into FIR No. 321 of 2014 at PS Sadar, Agra, and the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ality from the TV Broadcasters" (Emphasis supplied) Based on such a statement, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that out of the total sum of Rs. 39.31 crores paid by M/s. SMHPL to M/s. PPL, 50 % i.e. Rs. 19.66 crores was payable by M/s. PPL to M/s. IPRS. Rs. 13.04 crores out of that amount still remained unpaid and therefore, such amount was „proceeds of crime‟. SMHPL is not a party to the MoUs between IPRS and PPL and is not in a competent position to interpret or speculate on or interject conjectures into the same; this has been upheld by the finding of the AA in para 11 of its Order dated 27.11.2016. PPL has neither acquired nor detained any proceeds of crime from the scheduled offences; this has been upheld by the finding of the AA in para 12 of its Order dated 27.11.2016. 23. The statement of Mr. Suresh Srinivasan, COO of PPL was recorded on 25.06.2016 which is Annexure K in the relied upon documents before the AA. In the said statement, it was specifically stated that- "There was no specific amount collected on account of royalty/license fee payable to IPRS by PPL from M/s. SMHPL. It is a lumpsum amount collected by PPL from M/s. SMHPL." T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sic labels and / or a few film producers. No composer or lyricist or author has ever a member of M/s PPL. M/s PPL has no privity of contract with any author. PPL has been regularly filing annual returns with the Government of India, disclosing the list of its members and demonstrating that its members are only music labels. The Government of India, Ministry of HRD in its reply dated 17.12.2013 under RTI as to which copyright society is entitled to collect royalty for communication to the public of musical and literary works as part of sound recording under the copyright Act 1957 as amended by the copyright (amendment) Act 2012 have replied that the PPL was entitled to collect royalty for communicating to the public of musical and literary works as part of sound recording under the Copyright Act 1957. There is no privity of contract between the said Surendra Singh Kalra @ Surendra Sathi and M/s PPL. The said Surendra Singh Kalra @ Surendra Sathi is neither a member of PPL nor he has entered into any contract/ MOU with M/s PPL. There is no business relationship or commercial activity between him and M/s PPL. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN M/S PPL AND M/S SMHPL 25. The privity of contract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainant i.e. Enforcement Directorate. Once that is shown, the burden is to prove that they are untainted shifts on the Defendants/ Accused. The proceeds of crime is defined as under "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country. Thus the essence of the definition of the proceeds of crime is property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property. Thus in the absence of any direct allegation, implication and / or material to show that PPL has derived or obtained any property, directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to schedule offence or by commission of the Scheduled offence, it also need to be examined whether any such proceeds of crime so earned by other person/s i.e. IPRS, are transferred, siphoned or passed on to PPL. The allegations are made only against M/s IPRS. There is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said two banks accounts, constitutes the receipt of license fees and from which the administrative expenses incurred and royalties are paid to its members. The relevant issue, as to what amount constitutes the proceed of crime whether in relation to the Complaint of Mr. Surendra Sathi or any other claimant/s, if an/ is also not depicted in this PAO and / or OC (including RUD). The RUD also encloses at page no. 64 a letter dated 14.05.2015 written by the IPRS to Mr. H.S Mandlekar Assistant Director of DOE, thereby enclosing Annexure A-l to A-8, thereto. A copy of the said letter consisting of 2 pages in annexed as aforesaid (at page 64 and 65 of RUD), but none of the Annexure accompanying the said letter, are filed in the compilation filed/ RUD filed, by the Enforcement Directorate before this Authority. Similarly by letter dated 08.06.2015, address to Mr. H. S Mandlekar, Phonographic Performance limited have submitted several documents described therein consisting of about 175 pages. But the letter is filed before this authority without the said enclosures. Similarly a letter dated 19.06.2015 addressed to Sh. H. S. Mandlekar by Select Media Holdings is enclosed consisting of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th regard to sharing as stated by Mr. Nitin Ahuja. Mr. Nitin Ahuja, who is a director of M/s SMHPL, who have entered into separate MOU‟s with PPL concerning their activities, had no basis available with him to speculate and furnishing guess work calculation that the share of M/s PPL and M/s IPRS could be construed as 50% each in the royalty/ license fee charged in totality from the TV broadcasters. M/s S MHPL has also failed to furnish the data concerning the actual broadcast; but no such statement was furnished by SMHPL citing the reason that it was practically impossible for broadcaster to maintain such record. In view of the aforesaid factual position it would not be correct to rely upon the statement of Mr. Nitin Ahuja to interpret the percentage regarding the sharing of royalty. The said statements do not throw any light on the core issue, namely whether PPL is recipient of proceeds of crime from the scheduled offences or criminal activities thereto or by way of siphoning from IPRS. CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY ED. 28. The belief is entertained that "further, the proceeds of crime generated out of criminal activity related to the said scheduled offence of cheating which was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Adjudicating Authority before ordering issuance of the notice to show cause. Notice to show cause is issued in terms of the Adjudicating Authority (Regulation) 2013. It will not be a out of place to mention that in terms of section 6(15), the Adjudicating Authority is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 and that the Adjudicating Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. The Notice to show cause as issued cannot be therefore faulted with. FREEZING OF BANK ACCOUNT 30. The contention of the Defendants that there was a freezing of the bank accounts ordered by the Enforcement Directorate is erroneous. There is no order of freezing produced or brought on record nor is the same indicated. The relevant part of section 17(1-A) is as under:- "Where it is not practicable to seized such records or a property the Officer authorized under sub section 1 may make an order to freeze such property where upon the property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with prior permission of the officer making such order, and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned." It is thus mandated that if any propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nally attached, which PAO is confirmed. It is alleged that the said Surendra Sathi has authored only 37 songs since the year 1994 and was paid the due amount till the 2000 by IPRS. The allegations taking as they are is in respect of non-payment of royalty to the said Surendra Sathi. With regard to his claim also no material is gathered to shown as to what amount of royalty was due to him. Similarly though there are allegations that amounts were also due to other artists/ claimants, not a single claimant is show to have been aggrieved by any such alleged non-payment. There is nothing to show that any specific amount of royalty remained unpaid to the aggrieved artists/claimants. In such a situation and in view of the fact that an amount of Rs. 70 crores already stood attached based on the same FIR/ charge- sheet and in view of the absence of any material to show any criminal intent or involvement in commission of the scheduled offence and/or in the criminal activity relating to the schedule offence of M/s PPL, it cannot be said that M/s PPL has derived/ obtained any proceeds of crime. There is nothing to show that any amount at any point of time is passed on from M/s IPRS to M/s PPL.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PAO, i.e. Rs. 12,09,61,770 lying in the Account no. 00000054000110353 (current) with State Bank of Mysore Lokhandwala, Mumbai and amount of Rs. 94,38,230 in the account no. 0343912005 with Citibak Mumbai, aggregating to Rs. 13,04,00,000/- are not involved in money laundering. Hence the Provisional Attachment Order dated 02.06.2016 made under sub-section (1) of section 5, for the aforesaid movable property is not confirmed." 27. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of PMLA i.e. „criminal activity‟ and „proceeds of crime‟ resulting from such criminal activity, have not even been attempted to be established by the Directorate in the present case. Section 5 of the PMLA permits attachment of the property which are the proceeds of crime. Proceeds of crime are defined in Section 2 (u) as property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity. The money sought to be attached were generated through legal commercial transactions entered into by the Respondents. 28. It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of same FIR an O.C was filed against IPRS on similar allegations for non-payment wherein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deeds for continuance of membership. Vide the said letter, IPRS clearly conveys that if there is no response from Mr. Sathi in seven days, his membership with IPRS would stand cancelled. The contents of the said letter is re-produced hereunder:- "The India Performing Right Society Limited Regd Office: 208, Golden chambers, 2nd Floor, New Andher Link Road, Andhari (W), Mumbai -400053 Tel: (022) 26733748/49/50/6616, Fax : (022) 2673 6658 Fax No. (022) 2673 6658 E-mail [email protected] Visit us at : www.iprs. Org. Ref: IPRS:RK:PK: 1118:2009 9th November, 2019 SURENDER SAATHI Sub:- Assignment Deed not signed Dear Member, This is in reference to the above subject matter. While going through our records we have noticed that you have not yet signed the Assignment Deed which is long pending and the Governing Council has asked that the Assignment Deed needs to be signed by every member for continuance of membership which is required for effective governance under the law. Hence we request you to kindly visit our office and sign the Assignment deeds to enable us to distribute the royalties to you. If we do not hear from you within 7 days from the receipt of this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contended that in the case in hand criminal forum is being misused and his submission is that in case any royalty is due to be paid to opposite party no. 3, he should pursue the civil forum which is available to him and invoking of criminal forum, in the facts of the case, cannot be said to be justifiable. Petitioner submits that as far as membership of the petitioner in the institution is concerned, the same has been cancelled, in such a situation and in this background if he has any grievance to be redressed on the said score also then he should avail the proper forum. Petitioners have submitted that IPRS is a Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, and Companies Act in itself is self contained Act, but the petitioner has chosen to ledge F.I.R at a convenient Police Station whereas no offence worth name has been committed within the territorial limits of Agra. Prima facie argument advanced appears to have some substance and requires consideration by this court as such pursuant to impugned F.I.R. dated 02.06.2014 registered as Case Crime No. 455 of 2014 under section 420, 406, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 I.P.C., S.S. Sadar, District Agra, petitioner may not be arrested t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for Opposite Party:- Govt. Advocate, Manish Tiwary Hon‟ble Pankaj Naqvi. J. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assited by Sri Manu Khare/Sri Pragyan Sharma, for the applicants in all the three connected applications, Sri Imran Ibrahim, holding brief of Sri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for O.P. No. 3 and the learned A.G.A. All the three applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed for quashing the proceedings of case crime no. 455/2014, under sections 420/406/468/471/506/120- B/34 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Agra, pending in the court of C.J.M., Agra. The contention urged is that the allegations made in the FIR dated 2.6.2014 and the charge-sheet dated 4.5.2015 with accompanying materials, only alleges non-payment of agreed royalty, which in any view, would not attract criminal liability under section 406 IPC and the remedy, if any, for the applications, is to initiate proceedings for recovery of royalty before the appropriate forum, thus the present proceedings being an abuse of the process of the Court are liable to be quashed. Sri Ibrahim, learned counsel appearing for O.P. NO. 3 has vehemently opposed the contention. Notice need not be issued t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c royalty mentioned at any place in the whole body of the FIR made by Surender Sathi. iv. Even assuming that Mr. Surender Sathi were entitled to a royalty of Rs. 47,000/- during the period of 2007 to 2015, there is no justification for attachment of Rs. 70 crores. v. That the royalties collected by IPRS from various persons do not amount to „proceeds of crime‟ vi. The accumulation of the royalty collected and delay in its distribution was on account of non-furnishing of the required information by the members, non-submission of the requisite mandate by the members and non-continuing of the membership by the members. vii. The appellant has been unable to disburse royalties to its overseas copyright societies and other members of the appellant no. 1 on account of the PAO. viii. That Mr. Surender Sathi wrongfully stated that he was not receiving royalties from IPRS after the year 2000. ix. The Defendant no. 1 kept a buffer of Rs. 32 crore as claims towards refund of royalties in the event that of refund of entire licensing fees. x. The present amounts are not representative of the royalties to be paid as it comprises of the incremental and dividend being rein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that they had retained the royalty due to their members on the ground of non-fulfilment of formalities by the members, but they had not provided the list of such members to whom the royalty of Rs. 85.82 crore was not distributed by them. 21.3. Accordingly IPRS collected the royalty from the organization/person etc. in respect of the public performances on behalf of their members which is also not disputed by the appellant. Therefore IPRS after collection of the royalty (on behalf of its members) from the persons/organization on account of public performance retained the royalty to the tune of Rs. 85.82 crore as on 31.03.2014 which was due to their members. 22. Mr. Nitesh Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has admitted that Rs. 47,000/-were due addressed the royalty of Shri Surendra Sathi who is the complainant however the IPRS is not disputed the royalty of the other member thus the said Act of the IPRS is a case of criminal act of cheating. He further submits that the IPRS cannot dispute the admitted amount attached by the respondent towards the royalty payable to the various members therefore as per international standard the amount of royalty collec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out of which or by means of which it has acquired the property attached under section 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002; ii. Submit evidence and other relevant information and particulars on which it intends to rely; iii. Show cause as to why all or nay such property should not be declared to be the properties involved in moneylaundering and d iv. As to why consequently, the attachment order in respect of the properties should not be confirmed as representing proceeds of crime being value f properties involved in money-laundering; 27. The appellant no. 1 before submitting the grounds for prayer for quashing of the provisional attachment order and dismissal of the original complaint craves leave to draw attention of the Hon‟ble Adj. Auth. towards the basic facts and circumstances which have been interalia stated by the Complainant in the said O.C. 532 of 2015 as under: i. That Sadar Police Station, Agra registered a FIR 455/2014 dated 02.06.2014 invoking section 420,406,468,471,506,120-B r/w 34 of IPC against Defendant no. 2 & 3, both Directors of Defendant no. 1 and others. ii. That Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal Office registered the case no. ECIR/MBZO/05/2015 da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012 amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957, IPRS was collecting and distributing royalty as per then prevalent law and under the 1993 MOU to the Owners/Authors and Composers for encouragement to creators in spite of the fact that the Authors did not have a statutory right to royalty under the said Act. As such, royalty collection till June, 2012 were distributed to such Authors & Composers who complied with terms as approved by the Owners and not to Authors/Composers who disputed or did not comply with the terms. The royalty for period prior to June, 2012 to such disputing Authors/Composers is still lying with the IPRS subject to the completion of the documentation as sought by the Owners and its appropriation can be done only after the same. The Defendant craves leave to refer to few sample letters (signed) by members. The Defendant No. 1 has distributed royalties collected for the Post Amendment period i.e. June, 2012 onwards to all Authors/Composers and Owners including the disputing members without any conditions as per the amended provisions of the Copyright Act 1957 for royalty to Authors/Composers. The Defendant craves leave to refer to the copies of the Statement showing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e members during the period 2006- 2014 is merely 34.02%. The complainant had submitted the details of these figures for the Financial Year 2014-2015 too by the appellant as per detailed mentioned in Annexure-H to its letter dated 13.08.2015. The same was not disclosed by the complainant that it had referred to the same during the course of personal hearing but nothing has been discussed in the impugned order. On addition, the data which was hitherto available with the Complainant as per the above table, the amount of undistributed royalty reduces to mere 25% of the total amount of royalty collected by Defendant No. 1 as under: 2006-07 to 2013-2014 2014-2015 Total All figures in lacs (Rs.) Amount of royalty 25130.71 Collected 3344.38 28475.09 Amount of royalty 16581.33 Disbursed 4680.57 21261.9 Amount of royalty 8549.38 Pending distribution -1336.1 7213.19 % of amount remaining 34.01965% Undisbursed 25.33158% 31. Thus as per above factual figures, appellant has in fact distributed the royalty collected by it to the extent of 74.67% to its members and that the amount which could not be disbursed is on account of non-completion of the formalit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited vs. Eastern India Motion Pictures Assocation, AIR 1977 SC 1443, the Supreme Court held that authors and composers of musical works incorporated into cinematograph films, the said authors and composers were not owners of the said works. It is the producers fo the said cinematograph films that help the ownership fo the copyright that was as a matter of industry practice transferred to the music production companies. iii. Prior to 1993, Music Companies were predominantly members of the organization named Indian Phonographic Industry (hereinafter referred to as „IPI‟) and another company named Phonographic Performance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as „PPL‟). With the objective of acquired right to license for playing of musical and literary works and collect royalties for such usage, the then management of IPRS which was then only under control of authors and composers took a decision to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with IPL and PPL. Accordingly, Memorandum of Understanding dated 13-11-1993 came to be executed between IPRS, IPI and PPL, (hereinafter referred to as the „MOU‟) under which IPRS inter alia agreed to admit the members ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the same, the GC decided to call upon the non-owner members to sign and submit letter confirming the terms of MoU dated 12.11.1993 acknowledging the ownership of copyrights in musical and literary works by the music companies or that the author/composer could claim ownership by submitting documents proving copyright retained by them. 43. As a matter of fact, the Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that the attached assets involved in money laundering are „proceeds of crime‟ under the PMLA without considering the submission of the appellant and the Impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground. 44. In Ramani Mistry Vs Deputy Director, PMLA, FPAPMLA/ 296/KOL/2015, (At paragraphs 22 to 27 ) upon dealing with a case of attachment of properties disproportionate to the crime committed by the appellant, the Hon‟ble Tribunal held that the term „reason to believe‟ is not same as suspicion or doubt and that when it is said that a person has reason to believe a thing, it means that the circumstances and facts known to him are such that a reasonable man, by probable reasoning, can conclude or infer regarding the nature of the thing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o members on account of Disputing & Non-fulfillment of Conditions as approved in the governing Council/Board & Annual General Meeting by the Owners for the period prior to June, 2012. : Rs. 16,53,62,345/- b) Due to members on account of Disputing & Non-fulfillment of Conditions as approved in the governing Council/Board & Annual General Meeting by the Owners for the period prior to June, 2012 : Rs. 1,21,94,504/- c) Royalty pending due to Member deceased - No legal Heir, Members not traceable, Statutory Compliance Legal Disputes. Etc.: Rs. 5,23,13,807/- 1. As pm 31.03.2014 : Rs. 5,34,98,874/- 2. (less) distributed till31.03.2017 Rs. 11,85,067/- 48. Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate time and again in order to stress his arguments and submitted that the appellant has not paid the royalty to Ms. Shubha Mudgal who is well-known artist and her compliant is also pending. Counsel for the appellant has filed letter dated 29.05.2017 issued by her. Copy of the same was handed over by Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate. The contents of the letter reads as under:- " The Spcial Commissioner of Police (Crime) Police Headquarters Delhi Police New Delhi-110001. Ref: My complaint dated 12th May, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mudgal Cc: Mr. Satya Prakash (Investigating Officer) " 49. It is also pertinent to mention here that during hearing Mr. Pragyan Sharma leaned counsel for appellant has informed us that the complainant Mr. Surender Sathi has agreed to settle the disputes and to give his co-operation to quash the F.I.R. and he would file the confirmation letter within one week. On 2nd June, 2017 the copy of the letter dated 29.05.2017 has been filed. It is also pertinent to mention here that during hearing, Mr. Pragyan Sharma learned counsel for appellant has informed us that the complainant Mr. Surendra Sathi has agreed to settled the disputes and to give his co-operation to quash the FIR and he would file the confirmation letter within one week. On 2nd June, 2017 the copy of the letter dated 29.05.2017 has been filed. The same is reproduced as under:- "The Senior Superintendent of Police Agra Uttar Pradesh Ref: My Complaint filed before the Office of the SSP, Agra, Uttar Pradesh Respected Sir, I, understand had lodged the above referred to complaint with the office of the SSP, Agra, U.P. The Complaint adverted against the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) and its Musi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny of Court and that too with a stay to allegations and proceedings. This PAO is mala fide passed to over reach the order of the Hon‟ble High court of the Allahabad dated 04.08.2015 in Writ Petitions. No. 22187- 88-89 of 2015 filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. staying the whole criminal proceedings to the knowledge of the authority issuing the said provisional attachment order. This stay order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad does not find even mention in the said Provisional Attachment Order. In the absence of any subsisting Scheduled Offence, there is no scope to issue the Provisional Attachment Order against the company and its director more so when the property attached has no nexus whatsoever with the allegations in the FIR. We are shocked to find that PMLA authorities at a different corner of the Country have to proceed under PMLA in petty private disputes of civil nature, contrary to the very object and purpose of PMLA and in the process stall and harass law abiding citizens. Regrettably, the PMLA authority in the utter disregard of law, regulations and territorial jurisdiction passed the said PAO Order while suppressing most relevant material and docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt which has been distributed also will amount to proceeds of crime and all those who have received the same will have to be booked for offence for money laundering along with the persons from whom the said sums of royalty had been collected. That the contention of the respondent that the royalties so collected in legal and lawful manner were „proceeds of crime‟ was grossly wrong, baseless and without any logic. 65. The Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the order of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court dated 22.12.2015 passed in the Notice of Motion (L) no. 3620 of 2015 in SUIT (L) no. 1345 of 2015 wherein it had been held that the operations of the appellant are lawful and legitimate. 66. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.03.2016 passed by Adjudicating Authority in confirmation of the PAO no. 20 of 2015 dated 20.10.2015 passed in O.C. No. 532 of 2015 being not sustainable, is liable to be set-aside as the same was passed contrary to facts and against the law. We may clarify here that during the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has confirmed to us to pay the Royalty to the unpaid Artist without any condition as per law. Und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk accounts are other proceeds from its legitimate licensing activities, and represent licence fees to be distributed to PPL‟s owner-members, after recouping PPL‟s operating and administrative costs. This has been upheld by the finding of the AA in para 10 of its Order dated 27.11.2016. 38. No allegation of criminal activity against the Respondents at any stage can be considered appropriate as the respondents have been ready to pay the royalty after due compliance of law in view of amendment of Copyright Act. The complainant was reminded several times to receive the royalty subject to execution of relevant documents as per law. 39. We have also gone through the grounds of appeal as mentioned in the present appeal. We find that practically all the grounds are those as figuring in the related provisional attachment order and the original complaint and are already dealt with in the impugned order with which we agree. One of the grounds mentioned is that the learned Adjudicating Authority erred in not appreciating that the primary object of the section 8 of the PMLA i.e. of the Adjudication Proceedings is to take prima facie view on available material and evidence produced....