Copyrights

Supreme Court Case Notes

Introduction

  • Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

  • Appeal case: SC Appeal No. 155/14, High Court Colombo Appeal HCMCA No. 106/08.

  • Involved parties: Officer-in-Charge Special Crimes Division vs. Mananage Susil Dharmapala.

Background of the Case

  • Date of Incident: 8th April 2005.

  • Location: Colombo Public Library.

  • Accusation: Appellant (Susil Dharmapala) charged with violating the Intellectual Property Act by selling unauthorized copies of music CDs (i.e., "Galana Gangaki Jeewithe") containing songs owned by the composers.

  • Charges Filed:

    1. Selling unauthorized copies of the song "Yowun Wasanthae" by Professor Sunil Ariyaratne.

    2. Selling unauthorized copies of the song "Onna Ekomath" by Mirihana Arachchige Nanda Malini.

    3. Selling unauthorized copies of songs by Mahagamage Raveendra Mahagamasekera.

Proceedings

  • Initial Hearing: Appellant pleaded "not guilty" at the Magistrate’s Court.

  • Trial and Evidence:

    • Witnesses included Sub Inspectors and the original composers of the songs.

    • Appellant did not present any defense evidence.

  • Judgment by Magistrate: Appellant found guilty and sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment suspended for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000.

Appeal to High Court

  • Judgment Date: 20th May 2014, upheld the initial conviction.

  • Key Questions Raised:

    1. Did the High Court fail to apply the law relating to evidence integrity?

    2. Did the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Evidence Presented

  • Decoy police officer purchased CDs from the Appellant.

  • CDs contained songs attributed to the complainants.

  • CDs were shown to complainants at the police station and verified.

Legal Considerations

  • Intellectual Property Act: Section 178(2) outlines the obligations against the unauthorized sale of intellectual properties.

  • Proof of Ownership: Complainants demonstrated their rights through documentation indicating ownership of songs.

  • Mens Rea Requirement: The court examined whether the Appellant knew or should have known he was selling unauthorized copies.

Court Findings

  • The court confirmed the integrity of evidence presented as substantial, ruling that:

    • Prosecution successfully established that songs were unauthorized copies.

    • Affirmed the Appellant had mens rea as he had reason to believe the songs were pirated due to prior warnings from Raveendra Mahagamasekera.

  • Acquitted the Appellant of the third charge due to insufficient evidence linking him to those works.

Sentencing

  • Original magistrate's combined sentence deemed unlawful due to lack of distinct sentences for each count.

  • Revised sentence: 6 months imprisonment for each of the two upheld charges, fine of Rs. 5,00,000 with a default of one-year imprisonment.

  • ALL sentences to run concurrently.

Conclusion

  • Convictions on charges one and two affirmed, acquitted on charge three.

  • Appeal dismissed with respect to the first and second counts.