Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sachin Shetty vs State By The S R Nagara Police on 20 March, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 250 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 250 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. SACHIN SHETTY,
S/O. K.B. SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4 -S4, RANKA APARTMENT,
LALBAGH ROAD,
NEAR RICHMOND CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NISHITH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY THE S.R NAGARA POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally HIGH COURT BUILDING,
signed by BANGALORE - 560 001.
SUMA
Location: 2. SRI. YOGESH JAGADALE,
HIGH COURT S/O. SADASHIVA JAGADALE,
OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.11,
FRAGRANCE GARDEN CITY TOWER,
P.K ROAD, MEERA ROAD,
EAST THANE CITY,
MAHARASHTRA - 400 603.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.14788/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE IX
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF CR.NO.127/2018 FILED
-2-
CRL.P No. 250 of 2020
BY S.R.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 51, 63 AND 63B OF COPY RIGHT ACT AS PER ANNEXURE - A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the IX ACMM, Bengaluru, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 51, 63, 63(B) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1957' for short) in C.C.No.14788/2019.
2. The case of the prosecution was that the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint claiming to be an constituted attorney and an anti-piracy partner for many software companies and claimed that he was responsible to lodge complaints with the local Police against illegal use of unlicensed pirated software anywhere in India. He informed that a company named Intuitive Habitat at Bengaluru was indulging in illegal activities of the usage, storage, download etc. of unlicensed versions of the software for commercial gain and monetary benefit. Based on this complaint, the jurisdictional Police registered Cr.No.127/2018 on 07.09.2018. The Investigating Officer took up further investigation and -3- CRL.P No. 250 of 2020 searched the premises of the accused on 07.09.2018 and seized a computer allegedly containing certain software belonging to WinRAR and WinZIP. The jurisdictional Police recorded the statement of the witnesses who had accompanied the Investigating Officer at the time of search and thereafter, submitted a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 51, 63, 63(B) of the Act, 1957. The trial Court without even noticing that there was no documentary evidence to establish that the software downloaded by the accused on its system was licensed or not, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 51, 63, 63(B) of the Act, 1957 and issued process to the accused.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the premises of the petitioner was searched on 07.09.2018, the Investigating Officer seized the computer on the say of the complainant, that too without conducting any further investigation whether the software on the said laptop was pirated or unlicensed. He therefore submitted that the -4- CRL.P No. 250 of 2020 investigation was not conclusive and there is no material collected by the investigation officer to establish that the software on the said instrument was pirated and therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove the offence against the accused.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the complainant accompanied the search team and identified the system on which the unlicensed version of the software was downloaded and upon the complainant confirming it to be unlicensed, the Investigating Officer had seized the same. He therefore submits such an offence under Sections 51, 63, 63(B) of the Act, 1957 was made out.
6. I have perused the entire charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer. Except the report of a search conducted on 07.09.2018, there is nothing to establish that the Investigating Officer had ascertained that the software found in the laptop of the accused was either pirated or unlicensed. The Investigating Officer could not have filed a charge sheet based on the claim made by the complainant that the software found on the system seized during search, contained an unlicensed version of the software.
-5-CRL.P No. 250 of 2020
7. In that view of the matter, the Investigating Officer had failed in its duty in complying with the settled procedure for investigation of such cases. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this criminal proceedings alive, as it is unlikely that the accused could be held guilty, unless there was enough material to establish that the software downloaded on the laptop was either unlicensed or pirated.
8. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.14788/2019 passed by the IX ACMM, Bengaluru is quashed and the petitioner is set free.
Sd/-
JUDGE NR/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30