TARUN TYAGI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Mr. Alok Gupta, Director of M/s. Unistal Systems Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), a First Information Report (FIR) was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on July 23, 2007 wherein the appellant 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' 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 Sec. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 63 and 63B read with Sec. 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The CBI took up the investigation and seized certain documents and material from the office/residential premises of the appellant after conducting search and seizure on Aug. 03, 2007. The appellant moved, some time in Jan. 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 of 2008, which was preferred by the appellant against the order of the trial court rejecting this application. The order of the 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.) In 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 Sec. 381 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 63 and 63B of the Copyright Act, 1957. Insofar as the application of the appellant for release of the seized property is concerned, the trial court passed the orders dated Sept. 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 of Forensic Science, Hyderabad, vide letter dated Jan. 01, 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, 2010 under Sec. 207/238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking supply of deficient copies of documents, such as hard disk relied upon by the prosecution, i.e. Q-2, 9 and 20. The learned Magistrate rejected this application vide orders dated Nov. 06, 201 This order was challenged by the appellant by filing Criminal Misc. Case under Sec. 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 charge sheet 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 petitioner, 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.