IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE THIRTYETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 9 0 of 2005 Between: Batti Laxman … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 9 0 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district at LB Nagar, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No. 136 of 2003, dated 25-1-2005, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in CC.No.369 of 2002, dated 05-10-2003 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ranga Reddy district. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : On 09-7-1998, on a complaint lodged by PW-1, who is a State Co-ordinator of Indian Music Industry stating that pirated cassettes are being made at Edulabad village. Thereupon, the then Sub- Inspector of Police, PW-6 accompanied by PW-1 went to the house of the accused and found MOs-1 to 4, the Audio Recording Copier, blank cassettes and inlet cards, which include pirated cassettes also and they were recovered under Exs.P8 and P9 confessional-cum- seizure panchanama in the presence of PWs 2 and 4. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-11 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was marked. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused denied the same. 6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offences under section 63, 65 and 68 (A) of Copyright Act, 1957 and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default Simple Imprisonment for a period of thirty days for the offence punishable under section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957. The trial court also sentenced the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under section 65 of Copyright Act, 1957. The trial court further sentenced the accused to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under section 68 (A) of Copyright Act, 1957. 7. On appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate was confirmed by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district, in Crl.A.No. 136 of 2003, dated 25-1-2005. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that there is no evidence to show that the offence under section 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act is made out and further submitted that there is no evidence except the evidence of the complainant-Investigation Officer. 9. This Court perused the entire record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Even as per section 63 of Copyright Act, the minimum sentence in the provisio of the said Act, the sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than Rs.50,000/- and it is alleged that the offender was copying from the original but there is no evidence that the same is for the purpose of selling or for any commission, so lesser punishment can be given. 10. In view of the same, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner has copied the songs for the purpose of any monetary gain. As per section 65 and 68 (A) of the Act, there is no evidence against the petitioner. As far as section 63 is concerned, in view of the provisio to section 63 of the Act, the conviction is confirmed but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. As far as section 63 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to get back a sum of Rs.10,000/- which he already paid in the trial court. 11. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 30-09-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 90 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 3 6 Date: 30-09-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L