TARUN TYAGI versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 670, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 670 
TARUN TYAGI 
v. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
(Criminal Appeal No. 102of2017) 
FEBRUARY 08, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - s. 207 - Supply to the 
accused of copy of police report and other documents - Allegation 
that appellant stole the 'source code of a software known as 'quick 
recovery developed by complainant's co111pany and put it on sale 
on the website of the appellant co111pany - Registration of case 
under the Information Technology Act and Copyright Act - Charge-
sheet filed by CBI relying on hard disks - Appellant sought release 
of seized property - Refusal to supply the hard disk and compact 
disk to the appellant by the courts below - Correctness of - Held: 
s. 207 puts an obligation on the prosecution to furnish to the 
accused, free of cost, copies of the docu111ents 111entioned, therein, 
without any delay - If documents are volu111inous, instead of 
furnishing the accused with the copy thereof, the magistrate can 
allow the accused to inspect it either personally or through pleader 
in the court - On facts, in order to comply with the provision of s. 
207, marked hard disks be supplied to appellant subject to certain 
conditions - Information Technology Act, 2000 - s. 66 - Copyright 
Act, 1957 - ss. 63, 63B - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 381. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 puts ;•n obligation on the
prosecution to furnish to the 
accused, free of cost, copies of the documents mentioned therein, 
without any delay. It includes, documents or the relevant extracts 
thereof which are forwarded by the police to the Magistrate with 
its report under Section 173(5). Such a compliance has to be made 
on the first date when the accused appears or is brought before 
the Magistrate at the commencement of the trial inasmuch as 
Section 238 warrants the Magistrate to satisfy himself that 
provisions of Section 207 have been complied with. Proviso to 
Section 207 states that if documents are voluminous, instead of 
670
TARUN TYAGI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
furnishing the accused with the copy thereof, the Magistrate can 
allow the accused to inspect it either personally or through pleader 
in the Court. [Para 8) [677-C-E) 
1.2 CBI had seized some hard disks marked Q-2, 9 and 20 
from the premises of the appellant which contained the source 
code of the data recovery software. Defence of the appellant is 
that this source code was exclusively prepared by him and was 
his property. On the other hand, case of the prosecution is that 
the recovered CDs are in fact same or similar to the software 
stolen in 2005. In a case like this, at the time of trial, the attempt 
on the part of the prosecution would be to show that the seized. 
material, which contains the source code, is the property of the 
complainant. On the other hand, the appellant would try to 
demonstrate otherwise and his attempt would be to show that 
the source code contained in those CDs is different from the 
source code of the complainant and the seized material contained 
the source code developed by the appellant. It is but obvious 
that in order to prove his defence, the copies of the sei:t.ed CDs 
need to be supplied to the appellant. The right to get these copies 
is statutorily recognised under Section 207, which is the hallmark 
of a fair trail that every document relied upon by the prosecution 
has to be supplied to the defence/accused at the time of supply of 
the chargesheet to enable such an accused to
demonstrate that 
no case is made out against him and also to enable him to prepare 
his cross-examination and defence strategy. There is no quarrel 
up to this point even by the prosecution. The only apprehension 
of the prosecution is that if the documents are supplied at this 
stage, the appellant may misuse the same. [Para 10] [678-B-E] 
1.3 The said apprehension of the prosecution is based on the 
opinion of Government Examiner (Expert) who has opined that if 
the cloned copy of the hard disk was required, then the same 
could be prepared by the laboratory on supply of new hard disk 
of 500 GB but such cloned copy could not be write protected. In 
view of the opinion of the Expert, it needs to be ensured that the 
appellant, when given the cloned copy of the hard disk, is not 
able to erase or change or remove the same. If that can be 
._achieved by putting some safeguards, it would be the ideal 
situation inasmuch as provisions of Section 207 which ensure 
671 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
672 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
fair trial by giving due opportunity to the accused to defend himself 
shall be fulfilled and the apprehension of the prosecution would 
also be taken care of. [Para 11] [678-F; 679-A"B] 
1.4 In order to comply with the provision of Section 207, the 
hard disks marked Q-2, 9 and 20 be supplied to the appellant 
subject to certain conditions. Before supplying the said CDs, the 
contents thereof shall be recorded in the Cou·rt, in the presence 
of complainant as well as the appellant and both of them shall 
attest the veracity thereof by putting their signatures so that there 
is no dispnte about these contents later thereby removing the 
possibility of tempering thereof by the appellant. The appellant 
shall not make use of the source code contained in the said CDs 
or misuse the same in any manner and give an affidavit of 
undertaking to this effect in the trial court. [Para 12] [679-D-G] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
102 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2016 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M. C. No. 2729 of2014. 
Ashwin Yaish, Rajat Pahwa, Vinod Pandey, Nitin Kumar Thakur, 
Advs. for the Appellant. 
E 
P. K. Dey, Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Rajat Singh, M. K. Maroria, 
F 
Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Mr. 
Alok Gupta, Director of Mis. Unistal Systems Private
Limited (hereinafter 
referred to as the complainant), a First Information Report (FIR) was 
registered by the Central Bureau oflnvestigation (CBI) on July 23, 2007 
wherein the aprellan{ was made an accused: In the said FIR, the 
complainant had alleged that on or around March 11, 2005, the appellant 
had stolen the 'source code' of a software known as 'Quick Recovery' 
G ·developed by the complainant's company and thereafter put it for sale 
on the website of the appellant company under the name 
'Prodatadoctor '. Case was registered under Section 66 of the 
Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 63 and 63B read with 
Section 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The CBI took up the 
H 
investigation and seized c7rtain documents and material from the office/
TARUN TYAGI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
residential premises of the appellant after conducting search and seizure 
on August 03, 2007. The appellant moved, some time in January 2008, 
an application seeking release of the seized property. This application 
was rejected by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala 
House Courts, New Delhi on March 03, 2008. The High Court of Delhi 
set aside this order in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1518 of2008, which was 
preferred by the appellant against the order of the trial court rejecting 
this application. The orderofthe High Court is dated May 18, 2009. By 
this order, the High Court restored the application for release with direction 
to the concerned Magistrate to deal with the application afresh. Operative 
portion of the order reads as under: 
"2. The submission oflearned counsel for the Petitioner is that 
the entire business of the Petitioner is affected because of the 
seizure of all the electronic hardware equipments although 
incriminating the evidence, if any, may be only on some of them. 
He further submits that although the chargesheet was filed in 
June, 2008, no cognizance has yet been taken of the offence, if 
any, by the learned ACMM. 
3. Learned counsel for the parties were unable to inform the 
Court whether the opinion of GEQD on the seized electronic 
hardware equipment has been received by the trial court. 
673 
A 
B 
c 
D 
4. In view of the facts as noticed hereinabove, it is
directed that 
E 
the learned ACMM will first and foremost if not done already, 
consider whether cognizance should be taken of the offence, if 
any, on the basis of the charge sheet filed. This will be done 
within ten days of the receipt by the learned ACMM of the certified 
copy of this order." 
F 
2. ln the meantime, on June 28, 2006, the CBI had filed the charge 
sheet after completing the investigation. On May 27, 2009, the trial 
court took cognizance of offence under Section 381 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and 
Sections 63 and 63B of the Copyright Act, 1957. Insofar as the application 
G 
of the appellant for release of the seized property is concerned, the trial 
court passed the orders dated September 03, 2009 thereupon, directing 
the Investigating Officer to find out as to whether copies of the hard 
disk in question can be prepared with Unite Protect Software so that the 
appellant/accused is unable to use it till the pendency of the case. The 
Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Directorate 
H
674 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
of Forensic Science, Hyderabad, vide letter dated January 0 I, 2009, 
addressed to the Investigating officer, opined that cloned copy of the 
hard disk can be prepared. 
3. After receipt of this report, the appellant preferred another 
application on July 20, 20 I 0 under Section 207 /238 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking supply 
of deficienJi;ppies of documents, such as hard disk relied upon by the 
prosecuti~n, i.e. Q-2, 9 and 20. The learned Magistrate rejected this 
application vide orders dated November 06, 2013. This order was 
challenged by the appellant by filing Criminal Misc. Case under Section 
482 of the Code. The High Court has, vide impugned judgment dated 
June 13, 2016, dismissed the said petition. It is this order which is the 
subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. To put it in nutshell, 
along with the chargesheet filed by the CBI, various documents are 
enclosed which include hard disk as well that was seized from the office 
of the appellant. These are Q-2, 9 and 20. Though, copies of all other 
are supplied to the appellant, he is not given the aforesaid three disks. 
The appellant wants copies of these disks as well. His submission is 
that as per the report of GEQD, cloned copies of these hard disks can 
be prepared and, therefore, there is no problem in supplying the same to 
the appellant. 
4. Before dealing with the
aspect in detail, we may take note of the 
case put up by the CBI in the charge sheet submitted before the trial 
court after completing the investigation into the matter: 
5. The prosecution case is that M/s. Unistel Systems Private Limited 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'company') is a company established in 
the year 1995 and the business of the company was to buy, sell, import-
export and distribute all types of computer software and related works. 
The c01nputer software manufactured by the company were all Data. 
Recovery software related to recovery oflost data in crashed hard disks 
of the computer with various types of operating systems. The Data 
Recovery software developed by the company is under the brand name 
of 'Quick Recovery·. This software was developed and launched in 
the year 1999 and later got renamed as 'Quick Recove1y Windows". 
The software was a DOS based software and used to work for File 
Allocation Table (FAT). Subsequently, the software was got upgraded 
to FAT and New Technology File System (NTFS). This software was 
developed by a team headed by one Manu Bhardwaj and others in the
TARUN TYAGI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
office premises of the complainant's company and all these persons 
were employed in the company in the capacity of Programmers. The 
source code of the software programme 'Quick Recovery for FAT & 
NTFS' was stored in the programming room that was networked for the 
purpose of convenience and was not password protected and easily 
accessible by the other employees in the office of the company. 
6. The appellant was an employee of the company initially for a 
brief period of two months, i.e. in October and November 2003. He 
rejoined the company in June 2004 and worked till end of April 2005. 
The appellant had his own website, which he started while working in 
the complainant's company. The appellant, with dishonest intention of 
selling data recovery software, made out with the stolen source code. 
The website developed by the appellant was registered with Direct Internet 
Service of Mumbai. The appellant, during the period of his employment 
with the company, had access to the source code of 'Quick Recovery 
for FAT & NTFS' and unauthorisedly misappropriated the same from 
the programming room of the company. After leaving the services of the 
company, the appellant formed his own company by the name Mis. 
Prodata Doctor Private Limited. The appellant secured the services of 
one Mr. Vikas Yadav as the Programmer, who was given the stolen 
source code of 'Quick Recovery for FAT & NTFS' and was directed to
make a recovery software by modifying the stolen code. During 
investigation, Vikas Yadav made a statement as to how he had prospered 
the software 'Data Doctor Recovery for FAT & NTFS' based on the 
source code of the complainant's company. He further stated that how 
the appellant instructed him to remove the name of the company from 
the Graphical User Interface of the source code while adopting it for the 
new software 'Data Doctor Recovery for FAT & NTFS'. He further 
disclosed that he had developed variant of the software like Data Doctor 
Recovery for iPOD, Pendrive, Memory Card, Digital Camera, SIM Card, 
etc. with the help of the stolen source code of the company. During 
investigation, the stolen source code was recovered from his mail which 
was sent by the appellant. The appellant, after developing the 'Data 
Doctor Recovery for FAT & NTFS'out of the stolen source code of the 
company, put it for sale on his website and remittance was received by . 
him from abroad, through various payment gateways, and the variant 
software developed by Yikas Yadav was sold through these gateways. 
As per the CBI, it is also found that the appellant obtained a total amount 
of more than ~ 5 crores between 2004-2008 due to on line sale of the 
675 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
676 
A 
ll 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] I S.C.R. 
software under the name 'Data Doctor Recovery for FAT & NTFS'. 
7. It is on the basis of the aforesaid allegations in th~ chargesheet, 
that the cognizance is taken by the trial court of the offence under various 
provisions of the !PC, Information Technology Act as well as the 
Copyright Act. Keeping in mind the aforesaid case put up against the 
appellant, we now advert to the moot question, namely, whether the 
approach of the courts below is correct in refusing to supply the hard 
disk and compact disk to the appellant herein. Request was made by 
the appellant invoking the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. Other 
relevant provision, aid whereof is taken by the appellant, is Section 238 
of the Code. We would, therefore, like to reproduce these two provisions 
herein: 
"207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report aud 
other documents. - In any case where the proceeding has been 
instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay 
furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the 
following:-
(i) the police report, 
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154; 
(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 
E 
of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its 
witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a 
request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer 
under subOsection (6) of section 173; 
(iv)
the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 
F 
164; 
G 
H 
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to 
the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of 
section 173; 
Provided that the Magistrllte may, after perusing any such part of 
a statement as is referred t in clause (iii) and considering the 
reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a 
copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as 
the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused: 
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any
TARUN TYAGI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
677 
f A. K. SJKRI, J.l 
document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead 
A 
of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will 
only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader 
in Court. 
xx 
xx 
xx 
238. Compliance with section 207. - When, in any warrant-
case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought 
before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the 
Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the 
provisions of section 207." 
8. Section 207 puts an obligation on the prosecution to furnish to the 
accused, free of cost, copies of the documents mentioned therein, without 
any delay. It includes, documents or the relevant extracts thereof which 
are forwarded by the police to the Magistrate with its report under Section 
173(5) of the Code. Such a compliance has to be made on the first date 
when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate at the 
commencement of the trial inasmuch as Section 238 of the Code warrants 
the Magistrate to satisfy himself that provisions of Section 207 have 
been complied with. Proviso to Section 207 states that if documents are 
voluminous, instead of furnishing the accused with the copy thereof, the 
Magistrate can allow the accused to inspect it either personally or through 
pleader in the Court. 
9. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the aforesaid 
provisions and argued
that it was his right to receive the documents in 
question relied upon by the prosecution, in the absence of which the 
appellant would not be able to put up his defence effectively. He also 
submitted that the complainant had filed a suit bearing CS (OS) No. 792 
of2008 against the appellant seeking to restrain him from using/selling 
the said/similar software or its versions. The Division Bench of the High 
Court declined to a.ttach the bank account of the appellant in which 
monies were generated from the sale of the disputed software. The said 
suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on October I 5, 2_0 I 4, 
thus, demolishing the argument of the CBI that the appellant can misuse 
the same to the detriment of anyone much less the complainant who 
claimed to have a copyright in the same. It was pointed out that the CBI, 
in the second FIR against one accused Rupesh Kumar, has conceded to 
supply the mirror image/copies of the CDs, i.e. the questioned documents, 
and accepted the finding of the courts below wherein it has been held 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
A 
that 'there is no answer from the CBI whether the software is unique 
and there is no other software in the market for the recovery of lost 
data'. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
10. It is clear from the above that the CBI had seized some hard 
disks marked Q-2, 9 and 20 from the premises of the appellant which 
contained the source code of the data recovery software. Defence of 
the appellant is that this source code was exclusively prepared by him 
and was his property. On the other hand, case of the prosecution is that 
the recovered CDs are in fact same or similar to the software sto!en in 
2005. In a case like this, at the time of trial, the attempt on the part of the 
prosecution would be to show that the seized material, which contains 
the source code, is the property of the complainant. On the other hand, 
the appellant will try to demonstrate otherwise and his attempt would be 
to show that the source code contained in those CDs is different from 
the source code of the complainant and the seized material contained 
the source code developed by the appellant. It is but obvious that in 
order to prove his defence, the copies of the seized CDs need to be 
supplied to the appellant. The right to get these copies is statutorily 
recognised under Section 207 of the Code, which is the hallmark ofa 
fair trail that every document relied upon by the prosecution has to be 
supplied to the defence/accused at the time of supply of the
chargesheet 
to enable such an accused to demonstrate that no case is made out 
against him and also to enable him to prepare his cross-examination and 
defence strategy. There is no quarrel up to this point even by the 
prosecution. The only apprehension of the prosecution is that if the 
documents are supplied at this stage, the appellant may misuse the same. 
11. The aforesaid apprehension of the prosecution is based on the 
opinion of Government Examiner (Expert) who has opined that if the 
cloned copy of the hard disk was required, then the same could be 
prepared by the laboratory on supply of new hard disk of 500 09 but 
such cloned copy could not be write protected. Cambridge Dictionary 
defines "write protect" in the following manner: 
"to protect the data on a computer disk so that it cannot be changed 
or removed by a user" 
Likewise, Collins Dictionary defines the term "write protectLd" as 
under: 
"(of a computer disk) having been protected from accidental writing 
or erasure"
TARUN TYAGI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
f A. K. SIKRI, J.l 
In view of this opinion of the Expert, it needs to be ensured that the 
appellant, when given the cloned copy of the hard disk, is not able to 
erase or change or remove the same. If that can be achieved by putting 
some safeguards, it would be the ideal situation inasmuch as provisions 
of Section 207 of the Code which ensure fair trial by giving due 
opportunity to the accused to defend himself shall be fulfilled and the 
apprehension of the prosecution would also be taken care of. 
12. We find that CBI, under similar circumstances in the case of 
Rupesh Kumar, accepted the order of the trial court whereby directions 
were given to the CBI to supply the hard disk. In the said case, the trial 
court found that there was no answer from the CBI whether the software 
in question was unique and there was no other software in the market 
for the recovery oflost data from the logical cracked hard disk. Number 
of softwares are available in the market which negated the arguments 
of CBI that by supplying the mirror image of the documents, the 
complainant will lose its money and it will be in violation of the Copyright 
Act, 1957. In that case, the Court took undertaking from the appellant 
that he would not misuse the copy of cloned CD. We, thus, are of the 
opinion that in order to comply with the provision of Section 207 of the 
Code, the hard disks marked Q-2, 9 and 20 be supplied to the appellant 
subject to
the following conditions: 
(a) Before supplying the said CDs, the contents thereof shall be 
recorded in the Court, in the presence of complainant as well as 
the appellant and both of them shall attest the veracity thereof by 
putting their signatures so that thare is no dispute about these 
contents later thereby removing the possibility of tempering thereof 
by the appellant. 
(b) The appellant shall not make use of the source code contained 
in the said CDs or misuse the same in any manner and give an 
affidavit ofundertaking to this effect in the trial court. 
13. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal allowed. 
679 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G