IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 44 of 2004(A) ----------------------------- CRA.164/2002 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.1158/1999 of JFMC, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED. --------------------------------------- SADADAYAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KARTHULLI VEEDU, MUNDUR, ANJUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT., ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.44 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Section 51 (a) and 52 (A) read with Section 64 of the Copy Right Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that on getting secret information, CW.18 and party conducted a search in a premises and seized the videograph films along with articles used for copying. CW.17 conducted the investigation, CW.18 completed the investigation and laid the charge alleging that the accused was found to be in possession of videographs of Malayalam movies 'Summer in Bethlehem', 'Panjabi house' and 'Harikrishnans' without lawful copyright. It is alleged that the accused was taking video cassettes of the films violating the provisions of the Copyright Act. 2. PWs.1, 2 and 3, respectively the father, mother and wife of the accused, were cited to prove the search and seizure. They turned hostile. PW4, a neighbour, also turned hostile. PWs.5 Crl.RP.44/04 Page numbers and 6 are attestors to Ext.P2 scene mahazar. PW.9 Electrical Inspector inspected the room from which the seizure was made and he issued Ext.P5 certificate. PW.7 is the Village Officer who gave Ext.P3 possession certificate regarding the property in question. PW.10 is the Head Constable who assisted in the search and seizure and PW.11 is the jeep driver of the Peramangalam police station who corroborated the version of PW.10. PW.12 is the Sub Inspector of Police who conducted the search. Of importance is PW.8, the Tahsildar who examined the films and issued Ext.P4 certificate. 3. The only material that can be treated as relevant to hold that the cassettes which were seized viz., MO1 series are pirated versions, is Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Tahsildar, who gave evidence as PW.8. A close reading of that certificate, however, shows that though the Tahsildar had viewed the seized cassettes, there is no comparison made with the censor certified version or a copyrighted version. The violation of the Copyright Act would come into play only when it is concluded that there is Crl.RP.44/04 Page numbers a violation of the copyright, in the sense that there is a duplication of the version over which one claims copyright. The version of the movies in question, over which PWs.13 and 14 have copyright, is not a matter in evidence. PWs.13 and 14, the producers of two among the movies in question, have also not stated that the version over which they have copyright was made available for examination by the Tahsildar. 4. The accused has also yet another defence. According to him, since the seized video cassettes were taken out the packing, for being shown to PWs.13 and 14, after it was taken to the police station, there has to be other credible and cogent evidence to sustain the continued evidentiary value of the materials which were seized, particularly when, following the seizure on 26.10.1998, even according to the prosecution, the seized articles were sent to court only on 5.11.1998 and made available into court's custody only on 11.11.1998, going by the evidence of PW.15. Crl.RP.44/04 Page numbers 5. With the aforesaid material on record, the order of conviction and sentence are unsustainable in law and cannot stand. The same are liable to be interfered with in revision. In the result, this revision petition is allowed, acquitting the accused persons. The bail bond is cancelled. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.