K P MURALEEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thepetitioner is the third accused and the prosecution is under the provisions of the Copy right Act. Accused 1 and 2 are allegedly employeesof the petitioner.780compactdiscsaswell asdigital video cassettes were seized in the course of investigation. Offences have allegedly been committed in respect of those articles. The seized articles have been produced before the Court. The petitioner filed Annex.A2 application for return of the said compact discs seized from his possession.The learned Magistrate, by Annex.A3 order, has rejected the said request.

(2.) The petitioner's request in this Crl.M.C. is two fold.He first of all submits that no offence whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner in keeping possession of the compact discs.No forgery has been committed. The petitioner therefore raises a contention that in as much as no offences have been shown to be committed in respect of these C.Ds., they are liable to be returned to the petitioner.

(3.) In thealternative, thepetitioner submits that theinvestigationis now complete. Final report has already been filed. The C.Ds. are kept in the custody of the Court under conditions which would cause damage and destruction to the C.Ds. He therefore prays that appropriate direction may be issued for safe custody of the C.Ds. till final disposal of the case so that the petitioner will not be put to unnecessary sufferings, hardship and loss.