Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11

        "Criminal     Procedure       Code,        1973-
Ss.207/238     -    Compliance       with     S.207    -

Necessity of - For ensuring fair trial by giving due opportunity to accused to defend himself.

-Case of stealing of "source code" of software relating to data recovery in computers - Conditional order passed for provding seized hard discs to accused, to enable him to defend his case and safeguarding apprehension of prosecution, that accused may misuse the same

-FIR lodged by complainant, alleging that appellant-accused had stolen "source code" of a software relating to recovery of lost data in crashed hard discs of computer, developed by complainant's company when appellant was employee of his company - That appellant, thereafter, made a data recovery software by modifying the stolen code, and put it for sale on the website of appellant company under a different name, thereby receiving remittance from abroad, through various payments gateways, thereby obtaining a total amount of more than 5 crores between 2004- 2008 due to online sale of aforesaid software - CBI took-up investigation and seized certain documents and material from the office/residential premises of appellant after conducting search - charge sheet was filed and cognizance taken by trial court of offences under various provisions of IPC, Information Technology Act and Copyright Act - Appellant moved an application seeking release of seized property, on which trial court directed the investigating Officer to find-out as to whether copies of hard disc in question can be prepared so that appellant is unable to use it till pendency of case - Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Directorate of Forensic Science, Hyderabad, opined that cloned copy of hard disc can be prepared - After receipt of aforesaid report, appellant prepared another application under Ss. 207/238 CrPC, seeking supply of deficient copies of documents, such as hard disc relied upon by the prosecution i.e. Q-2, 9 and 20, which was rejected by Magistrate - High Court affirmed aforesaid order.