TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same as deriving or obtaining the same through a criminal activity. Any other interpretation would render the ED liable to mandatorily prosecute every case of cheating where one party fails to pay another like in recovery of money cases and the lakhs of cases pending under section -138 of Negotiable Instrument Act where the cheques issued by the borrowers are dishonored. Balances of the credit of PPL in the provisionally attached bank 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. The proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority are for confirmation of the provisional attachment order. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbers 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 IPRS and others. On completion of the investigations, the Agra Police authorities had filed charge sheet bearing number 13/2015 dated 04.05.2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. 4. Based upon the facts of the said case, the Enforcement Directorate registered a ECIR bearing NO. MBZO/05/2015 dated 31.03.2015 for investigation into the offence of money laundering, if any, in terms of the PMLA as the offence under Section 420, 471 120B of IPC, 1860 falls under scheduled offences covered in PART A of paragraph-1 of the schedule to the PMLA, 2002. 5. During the course of investigation, statements of four witnesses was recorded u/s 50(2) 50(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 6. On the said ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Amount paid by M/s. SMHPL to M/s PPL (Rupees in Crore) 2008 to 2010 20.34 2011 to 2013 18.97 Total 39.31 (viii) Out of ₹ 20.34 Crore received by M/s PPL from M/s SMHPL, M/s PPL in turn had paid ₹ 6.62 Crore only to M/s. IPRS on account of royalty payable to the member of IPRS. (ix) Further, though ₹ 18.97 Crore was received by M/s PPL from M/s SMHPL for the calendar year 2011 to 2013 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, M/s. PPL in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 are copyright owners as well as music composers and lyricists who are not copyright owners. The respondent no.-1 M/s. Phonographic Performance Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s. PPL‟) is, (in respect of the relevant period), a Copyright Society‟ for sound recordings registered by the Central Government under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 Police Authorities commenced their investigation. There is not a reference about M/s. PPL in the said FIR. The allegations are about his dealings with IPRS and not to the Respondent. Even the ChargeFPA- Sheet filed pursuant to the FIR by the Agra Police contains no reference whatsoever to the Respondent. There is no privity of contract or arrangement between the complainant Mr. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The Investigating Authority did not consider the same at all and blindly placed the material before the Complainant viz Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate. Even the Complainant did not consider this aspect and passed an Order under Section 5(1) of PMLA. 24. The Statement of Mr. Surinder Sathi was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA on 28.07.2015 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inistry 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 existed between M/s PPL and M/s SMHPL. There are two MOUs which are brought on record that shows that contractual relationship existed between M/s PPL and M/s SMHPL. The said MOU has specifically spelt out and recited as under The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS), the copyright society, in respect of musical literary works whose principa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 no material to show that any property derived or obtained by IPRS, is transferred, passed on, siphoned or conveyed to M/s PPL. Thus there is absence of material to justify that PPL is concerned with the scheduled offences or any criminal activity relating to the alleged scheduled offences, and that PPL derived or obtained any property from su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epicted 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 two pages at 106 and 107. Apart from the said correspondence (without the Annexures) as aforesaid, few of the documents are annexed namely, (1). MOU dated 02.01.2008 between IPRS and PPL (pages 66 to 68), (2). License agreement dated 29.01.2008 between PPL and SMHPL, enclosing list of PPL's members of January 2008, list of members ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 acquired by M/s PPL and derived by them in their bank account with sole intention to conceal its tainted origin and projecting the same as untainted property. As herein above discussed, there is no material to show that M/s PPL acquired and detained proceeds of crime from the alleged scheduled offences. PPL is not shown to hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 property is frozen in terms of section 17(1-A), a copy of such order is necessarily to be served on the person concerned. In the present case no such copy is produced at any stage. Even during the course of the hearing no such copy is brought to the notice of Adjudicating Authority. The argument that the accounts were frozen is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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. The criminal activities are alleged as against IPRS and its directors. What is important is to show that such proceeds of crime have been passed on to M/s PPL or it must be shown that M/s PPL was a party involved in the criminal activity of M/s IPRS regarding the commission of the scheduled offence, in the abse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the provisional attachment order was confirmed by order dated 23.03.2016 in O.C. No. 532/2016 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 29. The said order was challenged by the appellant i.e. IPRS (there-in) by filing an appeal under section 26 of the PMLA being appeal no. FPA-PMLA- 1302/MUM/2016. The fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 admin@prsited.com 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 letter than your membership with IPRS will stand CANCELLED. Hence we request you to kindly do the needful at the earliest. Thanking you with Musical regards Yours sincerely, For the Indian Performing Right Society Limited. Pravin Kapoor Asst. Manger Membershi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 till submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the petitioner shall extend full cooperation in the investigation and shall not interfere with the ongoing investigation. Order dated:- 25.8.2014 YK 11. Despite of order passed in favour of ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 to O.P. No. 3 as he stands represented. Counter affidavit may be filed within a month. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed, within two weeks thereafter. List in the week commencing 26.10.2015 before the appropriate court. Assignment, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stification for attachment of ₹ 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 ₹ 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 reinvested and reshuffled. The said documents evidencing the same have been concealed by the respondent. xi. The operations of the Appellant are lawful and legitimate as has been reiterated by the Bombay High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 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 collected and pending distribution could in royalty collected as to its constituted as proceeds of crime under 2(1)(u) of the PMLA Act. He submitted that another complainant filed by Shobha Mudgal is also pending investigation wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1386414/21 7500000 1386415/18 25000000 Total 3,25,00,000 6. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. 49040703976 43000000 404136109594 40000000 TOTAL 8,30,00,000 7. IDFC Asset Management Company Limited. 33569/76 5,25,00,000 Total 70,17,00,483 26. The Adjudicating Authority has issue Notice to show cause dated 23.11.2015 under section 8 of the PMLA, 2002 in the said O.C. 532 of 2015 calling upon the appellant to reply the following:- i. indicate the source of its income, earning or assets 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 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous members including Mr. Sathi had not executed the assignment deed as passed by the Governing Council, the members requested to sign the assignment deed within seven days of receipt of the letter else the membership would stand terminated. 6.2 Having not heard from him, the membership of Mr. Sathi was treated as terminated including other members who did not revert and no correspondence was received from him by IPRS and no royalty was paid post such termination as Mr. Sathi was no longer a member of IPRS. 6.3 The complaint of Mr. Sathi is at best civil in nature as he is not the owner of the songs written by him as per 1977 Supreme Court Judgment nor has he claimed ownership. So at best he can claim for royalty post 2012 that too against the owner publisher and not IPRS as he is not a member of IPRS. Even the Hon‟ble HC order dated 25.08.2014 also held the similar view. 29. In Para reply to PAO, the averment was also made by the appellant the same are reproduced as under: That prior to June, 2012 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court during the course of personal hearing. Hence keeping in mind the above refund litigation and major other litigations that the Defendant No. 1 had with FM Broadcaster, the Governing Committee Meetings in 2011 approved as under: Keeping in mind the investments and disbursements, that the Company shall disburse royalties keeping aside an amount of ₹ 32 crores as buffer for claims towards refund of royalties paid earlier to the Company.‟ The same was also duly reflected by Defendant No. 1 in its Annual Report of 2013-14 in Note 21 Contingent Liabilities. Hence the royalty distribution got slowed down to take care of such contingency of refund. The Defendant No. 1 craves leave to refer to the Annual Report 2013-14 during the personal hearing. As per Para 8 (vi) of the O.C. of the following data is available: 30. That from the data as submitted before the Hon‟ble Adjudicating Authority, it is very clear that the amount which had accumulated over the period on account of nondistribution of royalty to the members during the period 2006- 2014 is merely 34.02%. The complainant had submitted the details of these figures for the Financial Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... around ₹ 47,000/-. 41. The order of provisional attachment would indicate that without any supporting evidence, the Respondent concluded Appellants were in possession of Proceeds of crime‟ and attached amounts of ₹ 70,17,00,483/- alleging that the same were obtained from commission of the scheduled offences, without providing any determination or calculation for the same. The Adjudicating Authority further failed to observe that the appellant has been following international standards and norms of collection and distribution of royalty and the pending distributions could in no manner be construed as cheating. 42. The Respondent have failed to consider and appreciate the legal position concerning ownership of copyright in musical and literary works prior to the amendment of the Copyright Act, 1957 as detailed below; i. Under the unamended Copy Act, 1957, Section 17 of the Act provided that the author shall be the first owner of the Copyright. On the basis of the said provision, authors and copyright societies including the Appellant herein supported the position that he composers and authors were the first owners of the copyright in musical and literar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facing claims as to ownership of musical and literary works from authors and composers. As admittedly, the Appellant is a society representing the interests of the authors, composers and music production companies. vii. In light of the dispute around ownership, the Board of UPRs tool a decision in its GC meeting held on 8th August, 2005 to sent letters to members calling them upon a provide documents establishing their ownership of copyrights in musical and literary works created/owned by them. However, none of the author/composer members did submit such documents establishing or claiming ownership of copyrights. viii. As a result of this, the Board of IPRS took a decision in its GC meeting dated 27th March, 2008 that IPRS as a Copyright Society should not violate the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 namely 33, 34 35A conjoint reading of Section 34 (3) (iii) and section 35(2) of the Act read with Rule 14i (4) demonstrates that fees collected will be disbursed only amongst the owners of copyright whose names are on its register of members. ix. IPRS as a copyright society had a uphold the interests of the owners and distribute royalties as per 34(3)(iii) and 35 to o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yrs., having office at 208, Golden chambers, 2nd floor, New Andheri Link Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053 was filed with an advance copy to Mr. Nitesh Rana. In the said affidavit, it was disclosed that as on 31.03.2017, the status of the royalty of ₹ 85,82,29,782/- which was pending distribution as on 31.03.2014, is as under: i) Total royalty pending distribution as on 31.03.2014 : ₹ 85,82,29,782/- ii) Distributed out of (i) above a. In F.Y. 2014-2015 : ₹ 46,87,99,952/- b. In F.Y. 2015-2015 : ₹ 3,19,02,952/- c. In F.Y. 2016-2017 : ₹ 3,00,99,329/- iii) Cheques issued, not presented for payment by Members: a. As on 31.13.2014 : 1,18,00,000/- b. (Less) Reissue of ₹ 95,06,537/- c. Pending as on 31.03.2017 iv) Benevolent Fund : ₹ 22,93,462/- v) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PPL ) on various grounds and various other issues including non-payment of royalties and other acts perceived as being criminal offences. Pursuant to my complaint, F.I.R. No. 167 dated 26th October, 2016 was registered at PS: EOW ( F.I.R. and the same is currently pending investigation. In view of IPRS addressing the concerns of authors and composers to their satisfaction and in their welfare, I have issued the present letter for withdrawing the F.I.R. Some of the prominent steps undertaken by IPRS for the welfare of the Author/ Music Composer Community are enumerated as under: 1. IPRS's Board has approved amendments to its Articles of Association to bring them in line with the Copyright Act 1957 as amended in 2012 and the Copyright Rules, 2013, a copy of which approved by the Authors and Composers, has been made available to me; 2. All current Music Company Owner Publisher Members of IPRS have withdrawn all the Cases against IPRS including those against any author/ composer members in reference to complaints against IPRS; 3. IPRS has held a proper AGM and after causing necessary amendments in the Articles of Association in the AGM; 4. IPRS has also conducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F.I.R. ) and chargesheet has been filed in the said F.I.R. In view of IPRS addressing the concerns of authors and composers to their satisfaction and in their welfare, I have issued the present letter for withdrawing the F.I.R. Some of the prominent steps undertaken by IPRS for the welfare of the Author/Music Composer Community are enumerated as under: 1. IPRS‟s Board has approved amendments to its Articles of Association to bring them in line with the Copyright Act 1957 as amended in 2012 and the Copyright Rules, 2013, a copy Total royalty pending members. Accordingly, I hereby agree to extend necessary support for Quashing of the F.I.R. No. 455 of 2014 by signing the documents required as per law. I have signed the present letter out of my own freewill and without any force, coercion or threat. Yours Sincerely, Surendra Saathi Complainant and First Informant Cc: Investigating Officer, PS: Sadar Bazar, Agra 50. In the present case, the appellant has admitted that in its letter dated 9.11.2015, the appellant herein had inter alia made the submission with regard to the provisional Attachment order no. 20 of 2015 dated 20-10-2015 as under: For j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch PAO without a Scheduled Offence. We Shall be ready to tender any clarification and documents to prevent injustice to us 51. The said submissions of the appellant were disregarded to the principles of natural justice as without any reference in respect of receipt of the above said letter dated 9.11.2015, the Adjudicating Authority issued the notice to Show Cause dated 23.11.2015 to the appellant. 61. The Adjudicating Authority did not mention any reason as to why while passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2016, selective approach was adopted in considering and discussing the grounds submitted by the appellant in its written reply dated 11.01.2016 and on what basis the 14 ground. The said biased approach has caused severe prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. 62. The Adjudicating Authority despite submissions of documentary evidence by the appellant that the respondent had misrepresented the facts and had distorted the same in the Original Complaint for prejudicing the mind of the Adj. Authority accepted the same distorted version as the Facts circumstance of the case in the impugned order. 63. It is evident from the record that the appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1302/MUM/2016. 32. It is also matter of fact that before cancellation of membership of the complainant, proper notice was served. The said cancellation has not been challenged by the complainant. His contentions that other artists have not been paid royalty cannot be the subject of PMLA proceedings. The said alleged offences are allegedly committed during the said period. 33. Further, as noted during the proceedings in respect of appeal no. FPA-PMLA-1302/MUM/2016 in the case of IPRS-refer 49 of this Tribunal‟s order dated 22.06.2016 in the said case which is produced in para 30 above, (internal page no. 39-40 of this order refers), he (i.e. Surendra Sathi) is now agreeable to extend support to quash the FIR filed consequent to his complaint. 34. Even in the absence of the vital missing links between the alleged crime and the amount in possession of the Respondents, the Complainant proceeded to issue the Provisional Attachment Order contrary to the statutory mandate. The said order suffered from many infirmities as the money sought to be attached have been generated through legal commercial transactions entered into by the Respondent. The same were not generated thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of the respondent‟s case that the property attached is proceeds of crime or that involved in money laundering is found to be unsustainable, no fault can be found with the subject decision of the adjudicating authority not to confirm the adjudication order 40. We may add that it is settled law that the allegations in the FIR and the Charge-Sheet have to be specific, clearly stating the role of the accused persons. However, in the present case, there has been no allegation whatsoever against the Respondents in the FIR or the Charge-Sheet. In Hira Lal Bhagwati V. CBI, New Delhi (2003) 5 SCC 257, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in respect of the essence of specific allegations in the FIR and Charge Sheet has held as under: It is settled law, by a catena of decisions, that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise of representation. From his making failure to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the beginning that is at the time when the promise was made cannot be presumed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
