THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1535 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.57 of 2004 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, by the judgment, dated 25-08-2004, led the State to file this appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Arundalpet Law and Order Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused in crime No.187 of 2003 alleging that Bhimreddy Vasudeva Reddy, Investigator in the Indian Music Industry, Hyderabad, gave a complaint on 20-09-2003 at 10.00 AM alleging that the accused was indulging in illegal duplication, display and sale of pirated audio MP3 C.Ds. in his shop violating the rights of the copy right holders, on which the crime was registered and investigated into. H.C.343 of the Police Station seized 18 pirated audio MP3 C.Ds., 4 pirated audio C.Ds. and 406 pirated V.C.Ds. at the shop of the accused at 11.30 AM on the same day in the presence of Vasudeva Reddy under the cover of police proceedings due to unavailability of any mediators. The particulars required to be displayed as per the Copy Right Act, 1957 were absent on the C.Ds. and C.Ds. relating to the movies Vasantham, Seethaiah, Nuvvu Naaku Nachavu, Nuvvu Nenu were prepared in violation of the audio/music copy rights of the owners of such rights and consequently the accused became punishable under Section 63 read with Section 51 and Section 68-A read with Section 52-A of the Copy Right Act. After the offences were taken cognizance, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused on his appearance and he denied the allegations, when the accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To a charge under Section 51(a) read with Section 63 of Copy Right Act framed against him, he pleaded not guilty. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked during the trial and H.C.165 cited as L.W.3 was given up. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure and he had no defence evidence. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment holding that the seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 from the possession of the accused was not proved, entitling the accused to the benefit of reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted the accused. The present appeal is on the ground that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 coupled with Exs.P1 to P10 established that the accused was in possession of the pirated C.Ds. and hence notwithstanding non-examination of any independent witnesses, the accused should have been found guilty. Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri K.Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned counsel representing the accused/respondent are heard. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. P.W.1, the de facto-complainant on behalf of the Indian Music Industry with which he was working as an Investigator, was obviously an interested witness and while scrutinizing his evidence with extra care and caution, looking for independent corroboration for such evidence will be an accepted rule of prudence. His evidence discloses that he had no prior acquaintance with the accused and Ex.P3 Police proceedings said to have been conducted for the seizure of the C.Ds. in question in the presence of P.W.1 were unattested by any independent mediator. The unavailability of any independent persons to be witnesses to such seizure at that part of the day at such a busy place is not quite believable and P.W.1 admitted that they did not attempt to display M.Os.1 to 3 to confirm about the alleged piracy. P.W.1 further admitted that the Sub-Inspector did not requisition the services of anybody to act as mediators in spite of the scene being in a busy locality with several business establishments around. The alleged identity slips affixed to the cardboard boxes according to P.W.1 were not seen on M.Os.1 to 3 according to the trial Court, while P.W.1 himself had to admit in his evidence that no slip was affixed to the cardboard box. P.W.2 only claimed to know about the accused being booked under the Copy Right Act and he denied their corroborating the prosecution version by any statements to the Police. While P.W.3, Head Constable, claimed to have gone to the scene along with others in two autos, P.W.4, Sub-Inspector, claimed to have proceeded to the scene in a jeep. The Head Constable claimed 13 persons to have gone together to the scene while the Sub-Inspector stated the number to be 8. Contrary to the claims of P.W.1, P.W.3 stated that the Sub-Inspector displayed some C.Ds. and he also stated that they did not ask anybody to act as mediator orally or in writing. The scene of offence was in a busy locality even according to P.W.3 and the alleged testing of C.Ds. with C.D. player on computer as claimed by P.W.3 and P.W.4 was specifically contradicted by P.W.1. P.W.3 admitted that they did not mention such testing in Ex.P3 and he conveniently did not remember whether any identity slips were affixed to the properties seized. P.W.4, who registered the case at the instance of P.W.1, a retired Inspector of Police, claimed about questioning the accused about the source from which M.Os.1 to 3 were secured, which was not disclosed by the accused, but P.Ws.1 to 3 did not speak about any such questioning. There was an attempt alleged by P.W.4 to secure mediators and his claim that none came forward to act as a mediator was not corroborated by P.Ws.1 and 3. The display of C.Ds. at the shop of the accused itself as claimed by P.W.4 was not specified even in the charge sheet and P.W.4 admitted that he did not send the C.Ds. for any expert opinion about their originality. His claim about affixture of any identity slips on M.Os.1 to 3 was not specifically corroborated by P.Ws.1 and 3 and these discrepancies and circumstances assume significance in the light of the delay in the production of M.Os.1 to 3 before the Court. The trial Court noted that the only independent witness examined as P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case while the prosecution offered no explanation for the delayed production of M.Os.1 to 3. The production of the accused before the Court on 22-09-2003 and the property only on 08-01- 2004 rightly led the trial Court to suspect the genuineness of the claim of seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 from the possession of the accused and no conviction could have been given solely on the strength of Exs.P2 and P3, the complaint and the police proceedings, under the circumstances. The conclusion of the trial Court about the failure of the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt cannot be considered inappropriate or unfounded under the circumstances and hence the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 17th November, 2009. Skmr