THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 10 of 2009 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the conviction of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.175 of 2003, who were convicted for the offence under Section 68-A of the Copyright Act (for short “the Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur and the said conviction has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from one year to three months each. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is said to be an authorized agent to check the sale of pirated cassettes of Indian Music Industry and consequently on 06.08.2003, the push carts of A-1 and A- 2 were checked in front of Anwar talkies on Mydukur road, Proddatur and some pirated cassettes were seized. Consequently, a charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 63-A and 68-A read with Sections 51 and 52-A of the Act. During the course of trial, the accused pleaded innocence for the charges and on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-13 and M.Os.1 to 6. The lower Court has convicted the accused, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court for the offence under Section 68-A of the Act. The point for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below is legal and sustainable? POINT: The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that there is no proof of seizure of the property from the accused and P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the mediators, did not support the prosecution case and the evidence of P.W.1, who is an interested witness, and consequently the possession of the pirated cassettes is not proved. But the Courts below have taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, who is the complainant and who was present at the time of seizure about the accused being in possession of the pirated cassettes. Though, P.W.1 may be a police constable, there is nothing on record to show that has got any reason to implicate the accused in the crime. It is also difficult to believe that P.W.1 would have planted so many cassettes with the accused. Therefore, merely because the panch witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3, are turned hostile, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case and the Courts below have rightly accepted and appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4. There is no proof that the accused were creating pirated cassettes. The accused are said to be only petty vendors and eking out their livelihood by some business. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further contends that taking into consideration the above facts and also the fact that the accused have suffered imprisonment for about 15 days, the sentence already undergone may be treated as sentence of imprisonment for the said offence. Taking into consideration the above plea and the nature of offence and the provisions of Section 68-A of the Act, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if the sentence of imprisonment is confined to the period already undergone, while confirming the sentence of fine amount. Therefore, the period already undergone by the accused persons is treated as the period of sentence for the said offence. Accordingly, the point is answered. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 21-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 10 of 2009 DATE: 21-11-2011 MR