THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.913 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision has arisen out of the concurrent findings recorded by the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate Guntur and the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur in C.C.No.5 of 1999 dated 19.1.2001 and Crl.A.No.85 of 2001 dated 7.6.2004 respectively against the petitioners/accused (for short ‘the accused’). The accused Akula Ramachandra Rao is the proprietor of Mohan Publications, Rajahmundry. Late Sri Prathi Narayana Rao had written the book “Sri Sai Baba Jeevitha Charithramu” based on the work of Sri Sai Satcharitra, a Marathi work of Anna Saheb Dhabolkar @ Hemand Panthu. The author late Prathi Narayana Rao issued licence to Sri Sai Baba Samsthanam, Shirdi to print the above book. Thereafter, late G.V.R.Naidu was permitted by Sri Sai Baba Samsthanam, Shirdi to get subsequent editions printed. After the death of G.V.R.Naidu, Sri Sai Baba Samsthanam itself took the task of printing and selling the book and making it available to the devotees. Thus, Sri Sai Baba Samsthanam, Shirdi is the sole copy right owner of the said book. The accused handed over one of those books to P.W.6 and requested him to write the same version of the book, but simplifying the words of it for his personal reading. Having received the book manuscript of the book, the accused with an intention to acquire money by fraudulent means by deceiving the public, got the cover page of the book printed with P.W.3 and got the remaining matter printed at Kola off-set printers of P.W.4 and released the book “Sri Shirdi Sai Baba Jeevitha Charithra”. On 24.10.1997 P.W.1 purchased the said book from the shop of P.W.2 and on reading, he noticed that it was a fake one, therefore he lodged report with the C.I.D., Guntur and the same was registered as Cr.No.9 of 1998. The police sent both the original and infringed one along with the admitted writings of P.W.6 to P.W.18 for comparison and opinion. Further, after completing the investigation of the case, he filed charge sheet. The accused was tried for offence punishable under Section 63 of Copy Rights Act, 1957 and Section 420 IPC. For the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Exs.P1 to P37 were marked and for the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court, after due consideration of the matter, found the accused guilty and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the said offence and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, whereas the accused preferred Crl.A.No.85 of 2001 consequently and the appellate Court on due consideration of the matter, dismissed the appeal confirming the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence this revison. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that even as per the charge sheet, the accused approached the printers who were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4 for the purpose of printing the book in question for his personal use, but P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the prosecution version and the evidence of P.W.1 who according to the accused purchased the book in question from P.W.2 who was the owner of the shop from which the books are said to be seized is not useful to establish the allegations made against the accused and further, there should be clear evidence to the effect that the books were intended to be sold in order to attract the provisions of Section 63 of the Copy Rights Act and further Section 44 of the Copy Rights Act, which is relevant was not complied with and absolutely there is no basis to convict and sentence the accused both the Courts below gave incorrect findings and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused are liable to be set aside. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. The point for consideration is whether sufficient evidence was placed before the trial Court with reference to the charges made against the accused and whether the Courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are sustainable in law. Here the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 who are said to be the printers of the book is very important, but significantly they turned hostile to the prosecution. Therefore, the main ingredient to the effect that the accused approached them and requested them to print the books and obtained printed editions of the book for his personal purpose or for sale is not established. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not useful, as they did not speak anything incriminating against the accused, it is just their evidence that the 1st of them approached the 2nd of them and purchased the book. Further P.W.5 who claimed to have book selling shop deposed that he knew the accused who was the publisher and book seller of Mohan Publications and one Veera Venkata Ramana Murthy gave report to him on 11.9.1992 for publishing the duplicate book Ex.P2. P.W.9 Veera Venkata Ramana Murthy did not speak about the complicity of the accused in the case. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he saw the cover page of the book published by the accused. But his evidence discloses that he got no personal knowledge about it. There is similar evidence from P.W.10-K.Venkata Yellaiah who claims to be the Secretary of the said publication. Further, pertinently, P.W.12-Trustee of Sri Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan which was holding the rights on the book stated that similar books were available everywhere in the market apart from the free distribution of the books to the devotees of Sri Saibaba and so on. It might be that the books were got printed by somebody else and they were seized by the prosecution. Therefore there is no material to convict and sentence the accused as alleged. The Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused are liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by both the Courts below are set aside and the Accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 15.6.2011 DA