Telangana High Court
Chinthapally Shashidhar Reddy vs The State Of Ap., Rep Byits Police ... on 4 February, 2022
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14351 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner-A1 under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.488 of 2013 on the file of
XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that on 10.01.2012 at
11.00 AM, the 2nd respondent lodged a report before the Police, L.B.
Nagar Police Station, stating that he was working as a Junior
Investigator in the Indian Music Industry (IMI) and the said IMI was
having membership of 140 leading music companies. The main object
of the IMI was to protect the interest of their member companies from
Audio chip piracy. He was given General Power Attorney to conduct
survey and to detect audio piracy and to give complaints in the police
station for taking necessary action. On 10.01.2012 he conducted
survey in the limits of L.B. Nagar Police Station of Cyberabad
Commissionerate with the assistance of LWs.2 to 4 and found some of
the Mobile Shop owners were indulging in audio chip piracy and
named the shops as Sai Sri Communications, Nagole X road, LB
Nagar; Sri Laxmi Rasasgnya Mobiles, Nagole X Road, Bandlaguda
road; Manikanta Mobiles, Nagole X road, Bandlaguda; Sri Laxmi
Communications, near PMR Garden Nagole X road; Dreams Mobiles,
Nagole X road and Excel Mobiles, Bandlaguda X road. He stated that
the Proprietors and the workers of the above mobile shops were
indulging in audio chip piracy and they were undertaking recording of
Dr.GRR,J
the cinema songs of the choice of customers in the memory cards and
were collecting money from them without having any licence or
copyright agreement from copyright holder. Basing on the said report,
the Inspector of Police, L.B. Nagar, registered a case in Crime No.68
of 2012 for the offences under Sections 63, 51, 68-A, 52-A and 65 of
the Copy Right Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act'). The police after
investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A10 for the above
offences under the Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner - A1 was the owner of the Mobile Store in the name and
style of "Sai Sri Communications". His only business was sale and
repair of cell phones and he had not indulged in any other activities as
alleged. The police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner
contending that they went to the petitioner's shop in the presence of
panch witnesses i.e. LWs.5 and 6 and they heard songs being loaded
in a memory card by A7. It was also alleged that A7 confessed about
his involvement in the offence. The police seized the computers, card
recorder and memory cards. The petitioner was no way concerned
with the alleged memory cards. The 2nd respondent was not having
any locus to lodge the case. The offences alleged would not attract
against the petitioner. Without considering any of the said aspects,
the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner only for statistical
purpose to show that they had booked cases of audio piracy. There
Dr.GRR,J
were no allegations against the petitioner and all the allegations were
against A7 only. Apart from that, the film songs were directly
available in the internet and hence, the question of petitioner being
indulged in any of the offence was not sustainable. There was no
incriminating material against the petitioner, continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner was nothing but an abuse of process
of law and prayed to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
case was split up against A1 and tried against the other accused as
stay was granted by the Court and was extended from time to time.
The other accused persons were acquitted on 19.04.2018 vide CC
No.49 of 2017. The said judgment also attained finality as the State
had not preferred any appeal and relied upon the judgment of the High
Court of Allahabad in Pradeep Kumar Tank v. State of U.P.and
another1.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reported to decide the
petition on merits.
7. Perused the record and the copy of the judgment filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in CC No.49 of 2017. The case was
tried against A2 to A4, A6 and A9 for the offences under Sections 63,
51, 68-A, 52-A and 65 of the Copy Right Act. The prosecution got
examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. PW.1 was the
complainant, PW.2 was the person who assisted PW.1 and who went
to Sai Sri Communications and Sri Laxmi Communications as a
2019 LawSit (All) 516
Dr.GRR,J
customer and requested the person in the Sai Sri Communications to
download the songs in his 4G memory card and stated about demand
of Rs.100/- towards charges for downloading the songs by the person
in the shop and that he gave 2 GB memory card to the person in Sri
Laxmi Communications shop and he demanded Rs.90/- towards
charges and downloaded the songs after collecting the charges. PW.3
was the panch witness, who turned hostile. PW.4 was the
Investigating Officer.
8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the trial Court by observing that PWs.1 and 2 were the
employees of the same company and no report was filed by PW.1
about PW.2 visiting the shop as a customer and got recorded the songs
in the memory cards and PW.2 had also not stated to the police about
visiting Sai Sri Communications and Sri Laxmi Communications as a
customer and no eye witnesses were examined by the prosecution
except panch witness, who turned hostile and there was no evidence to
connect the accused with the crime, acquitted the Accused Nos.2, 3, 4,
6 and 9 for the offences under Sections 63, 51, 68-A, 52-A and 65 of
the Copy Right Act.
9. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Pradeep Kumar Tank case (supra), the Allahabad High
Court by relying on its previous judgment in Diwan Singh v. State
[1964 Lawsuit(All)182] held that when the allegations and witnesses
were same and after examination of witnesses, one accused was
acquitted, then other co-accused could not be punished.
Dr.GRR,J
10. In the present case also, the charges against the petitioner
and the other accused persons who were tried and acquitted are on one
and the same allegations and they were all charged in the same Crime
No.68 of 2012. The Accused Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 9 were also
Proprietors and Technicians of various mobile shops and the evidence
against all these accused was one and the same. Hence, it is
considered fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A1 in
CC No.488 of 2013 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.
Nagar, Hyderabad.
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the
proceedings in CC No.488 of 2013 on the file of XIV Metropolitan
Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, against the petitioner-A1.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J
February 04, 2022
KTL
