THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1673 of 2004 Date: 24.06.2011 Between: Kavuri Uma Maheswara Rao … Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1673 of 2004 ORDER: The sole accused was charged for the offence under Section 51 read with Section 63 as well as u/s. 52 (A) (a) r/w 68 (A) and Sec.64 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. He was found guilty of the offence u/s.52-A r/w 68-A of the Copy Right Act. The accused was found not guilty of the offence u/s.51 r/w 63 of the Copy Right Act. The learned trial Judge considered that it was not a fit case for the application of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge sentenced the accused to Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. In the appeal preferred by the accused, the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru confirmed the conviction. He, however, modified the sentence to R.I. for a period of six months but enhanced fine to Rs.3,000/- with appropriate default sentence. Not satisfied with the orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court, the revision petitioner preferred the present revision. 2. Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia alleged that the case is not proved. He pointed out that the computer, CD drives and CDs, which the police allegedly seized, should have been produced before the trial Court and the failure of the police to produce the same operates as benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. MO.1 is 54 duplicate CDs. MO.2 is the original CDs. I agree with the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that it is not necessary that the computer, the CD drive and the CDs recover need not be produced before the Court. Corpus delecti is the copyright violated CDs and not the computer and the master compact disk on which the CDs were recorded. No adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not seizing these instruments. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the evidence of PW.2 cannot be accepted, as PW.2 is the stock mediator. Albeit PW.2 tried to pose as if he is an independent mediator, from his evidence, it is not difficult to infer that he is a stock mediator of police. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely because PW.2 is a stock mediator, the evidence cannot be brushed aside. It is settled law that the evidence of stock mediator should be viewed carefully and that the evidence cannot be rejected outright. Although PW.2, who was one of the mediators, was subjected to cross-examination, the mediator repeatedly deposed that he was present when the petitioner was found to be manufacturing spurious CDs. The evidence of PW.2 not only cannot be disbelieved, the evidence clearly, categorically and specifically pinpointed the guilt of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the prosecution failed to establish that they seized MO.1 consisting of duplicate CDs in violation of the Copy Right Act. PW.3 is the Investigating Officer. He was not qualifying to speak whether the CDs were duplicates or originals. PW.1 is an expert in this field. PW.1 is an investigator in the Indian Music Industries since 1998. As an expert, PW.1 deposed that MO.1 is duplicate CDs and that MO.2 consists of original CDs. The evidence of PW.1 remained intact even after cross-examination. In view of the evidence of PW.1 which is an expert opinion and where there is nothing on record to discredit the evidence of PW.1, I have no hesitation to agree with the contention of the claim of PW.1 that MO.1 consists of duplicate CDs. 6. PWs.1 and 2 established that the petitioner was found manufacturing duplicate CDs as PWs.1 and 2 deposed that the petitioner was copying duplicate CDs at the time of the raid. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 stood corroborated by the evidence of PW.3. The finding of the trial Court and the appellate Court that the accused was guilty of violating the provisions of Copy Right Act are perfectly justified and do not need any interference. 7. Regarding the quantum of sentence, I may point out that the incident in this case occurred way back in 1999. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to R.I. for a period of three months for the offence u/s.52 (A) r/w 68 (A) of the Copy Right Act and also maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs.3,000/- imposed by the appellate Court. Accordingly, this revision is ordered. 8. The revision is dismissed insofar as it questions the conviction recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court. Inasmuch as the revision is about the sentence recorded by the appellate Court, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months R.I. and also fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of which, to suffer S.I. for a period of three months, as recorded by the appellate Court. The petitioner shall surrender himself at once to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. He is indeed entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 24.06.2011 Isn