NARESH SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case purpose of convenience) read with 51 of is filed by the unsuccessful accused in Crl. the said Act, in default of payment of the A No.220/2002 on the file of Additional said fine, the accused to undergo simple Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, imprisonment for one month. The accused The petitioner/ accused was convicted and also was further convicted and sentenced to sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment undergo simple imprisonment for six months for six months and to pay a fine of and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the Rs. 50,000.00 for the offence punishable under offence punishable under Section 68-A of Sec. 63 of Copyright Act (in short the Act, in default of the payment of the hereinafter referred to as "Act" for the said fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and the above sentences were directed to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the same, made by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in CC No.615/2001, the accused had carried the matter by way of appeal in Crl. A No.220/2002 on the file of the Court of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the learned appellate Court confirmed the findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate aforesaid and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, to the present criminal revision case had been preferred by the petitioner/ accused.

(2.) While admitting the matter on 26.12.2003, this Court granted interim suspension of sentence in Crl.M.P.No.9002/ 2003 and also further directed the release of the accused on bail.

(3.) Sri C. Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through Sections 63, 51 and 68-A of the Act and would maintain that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the ingredients of the said provisions. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the testimony of PW1 and PW2 being discrepant and further these witnesses being interested witnesses, on the strength of the evidence of these witnesses, the petitioner/ accused could not have been convicted. The learned Counsel also would further maintain that PW3 was declared hostile and in the absence of any acceptable evidence in this regard, it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to establish the seizure. When that being so, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also while further elaborating his submissions would maintain that there is absolutely no proof to show that the petitioner is the owner of the premises wherefrom M.Os.l to 3 had been seized. Further, the learned Counsel also would maintain that PW2 was not authorized by Indian Music Industry to conduct survey and detect variations and infringements. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the statement made during the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as against the petitioner/accused. At any rate, since the very nexus which ought to have been established by the prosecution had not been established, the findings recorded by both the Courts below being unsustainable, the criminal revision case to be allowed by recording acquittal.