IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1480 OF 2002 Between: J. Prakash and 3 others … Petitioners And: The State of A.P. through Inspector of Police, Special Detective Team, CID, Hyderabad, rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. .. Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1480 OF 2002 ORDER: 1) This Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 04.10.2002 in Criminal Appeal No.379 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur confirming the conviction and sentence passed in judgment dated 01.07.1999 in C.C.No.249 of 1996 on the file of the court of the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, whereunder and whereby the trial court convicted the petitioners/Accused 1 to Accused 4 of the offence under Section 51 read with 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2) The brief facts, that are necessary, for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case may be stated as follows: The Accused No.1 was residing in a house in Guntur and was reproducing Audio Piracy Cassettes of various Telugu films on the decks and cassette recorders in large scale with the assistance of accused No.2 to 4 and distributing them to the shops illegally without any copy rights. P.W.1 purchased the Audio Rights of the various Telugu Films and on coming to know about the piracy activities of Accused No.1, he lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 with the Crime Investigation Department. The investigation was taken up by P.W.4. During the course of investigation, P.W.4 secured the presence of P.W.3 and seized certain piracy cassettes from the house of the accused No.1 under Ex.P-26, and after completion of investigation, P.W.4 filed the charge sheet. 3) The case was taken on file by the trial court for the offences under sections 51 read with 63 of the Copyrights Act, 1957. 4) When the accused were examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence under Section 51 read with 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 they denied the same and claimed to be tried. 5) To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.28 besides case properties M.Os.1 to 33. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6) The trial court, accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated above. On appeal, it was confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Revision case is filed. 7) Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of the lower court and appellate court are correct, legal and proper? 8) Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there is no evidence to show that P.W.1 was having a license or certificate issued by the Competent Authority showing that he was having Copyright in respect of certain songs of Telugu films in cassettes that were allegedly seized by the Police; that there is no evidence to show that the M.Os 1 to 31-cassettes were pirated cassettes and they were seized from the house of the accused No.1, as the mediators and investigating officer did not testify the same in the court that the cassettes were seized from the house of the accused No.1; that the prosecution failed to establish that P.W.1 was having Copyright over M.O.1 to 31 except M.O.20 and 21 and therefore he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence. 9) On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that both the courts below, appreciated the evidence available on record in right perspective; that the concurrent findings need not be interfered with, in view of the fact that none of the findings is shown to be illegal and incorrect; that P.W.3 and 4 are disinterested witnesses against whom nothing has been attributed and that therefore, she prays to dismiss the revision case. 10) In the first instance, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 was having a Copyright in respect of the certain songs in Telugu films contained in cassettes allegedly seized from the house of the accused No.1. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.2, who is the Producer of the Film Garana Bullodu, he sold the Audio Rights of said film to P.W.1. They are relating to M.Os 20 and 21. Therefore, the prosecution at best adduced the evidence in respect of M.Os.20 and 21 to show that P.W.1 was having a Copyright. In respect of other material objects, P.W.1 himself admitted that he did not register the audio rights as per the Copyright Act, 1957. There is no evidence to infer that P.W.1 obtained a licence from competent authority. P.W.1 also admitted that he gave the original cassettes to the Police. Admittedly P.W.1 was not present at the time when P.W.4 searched the house of the accused No.1 and seizure of the M.Os 1 to 31. According to P.W.1, he was having Copyright in respect of M.Os 1 to 31. He did not speak about M.O.33. Therefore, P.W.1 was not a competent witness to testify as to whether these cassettes were seized from the house of the accused No.1. 11) To speak about the conducting search and seizure, the evidence of P.W.3-mediator and P.W.4 Investigating Officer is relevant. In their entire evidence, they did not state that M.Os.1 to 31 were seized from the house of the accused No.1. Their evidence would not go to show that M.Os.1 to 31- cassettes were seized from the house of the accused No.1. As P.W.1 did not speak that he was having Copyright in respect of M.Os.1 to 31, the seizure of M.Os.1 to 31 from the house of the accused No.1, cannot be said to be a violation under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. P.W.3 and 4 did not specifically state that they seized the M.Os 1 to 31 from the house of the accused No.1. When M.Os.1 to 31 were not shown to be seized from the house of the accused No.1, it cannot be presumed that they are pirated cassettes, and that the accused are liable for punishment for violation of Section 51 of the Copyright Act. 12) The prosecution also did not adduce any evidence to show that the M.Os. 1 to 31 are pirated cassettes, except the oral testimony of the P.W.1 that M.Os.1 to 31 are pirated cassettes. No expert is examined to show that the M.Os 1 to 31 are pirated cassettes. The pirated cassettes are not compared with the original cassettes for which the P.W.1 was having a Copyright. In the first instance, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to show that the P.W.1 was having a Copyright in respect of M.Os.1 to 31. In respect of M.Os.20 and 21, P.W.1 failed to adduce, any evidence to show that they are pirated cassettes. Secondly it is not shown that M.Os.1 to 31 were seized from the possession of the accused No.1. When it is a specific case of the prosecution that the M.Os.1 to 31 are the pirated cassettes, it must be established that they were seized from the possession of the accused No.1. But there is no such evidence. Therefore, without adverting to all these aspects, the trial court gave a perverse finding and the same was confirmed in the appeal. In view of the fact that when the findings are based upon no evidence at all and illegal findings are given, it is a fit case to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed against the Revision Petitioners. 13) In the result, the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court are set aside and the accused are found not guilty of the charge for the offence under Section 51 read with 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and accordingly acquitted. The bail bonds of the revision petitioners/A-1 to A-4 shall stand cancelled and the fine amount paid by the accused shall be refunded to them. 14) The Criminal Revision Case is allowed accordingly. _______________ Date:06.10.2009 K.C.BHANU,J Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1480 OF 2002 Date:06.10.2009 Gk.