Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"10. It is clear from the above that the CBI had seized some hard disks marked Q-2, 9 and 20 from the premises of the appellant which contained the source code of the data recovery software. Defence of the appellant is that this source code was exclusively prepared by him and was his property. On the other hand, case of the prosecution is that the recovered CDs are in fact same or similar to the software stolen in 2005. In a case like this, at the time of trial, the attempt on the part of the prosecution would be to show that the seized material, which contains the source code, is the property of the complainant. On the other hand, the appellant will try to demonstrate otherwise and his attempt would be to show that the source code contained in those CDs is different from the source code of the complainant and the seized material contained the source code developed by the appellant. It is but obvious that in order to prove his defence, the copies of the seized CDs need to be supplied to the appellant. The right to get these copies is statutorily recognised under Section 207 of the Code, which is the hallmark of a fair trail that every document relied upon by the prosecution has to be supplied to the R/SCR.A/9907/2019 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2021 defence/accused at the time of supply of the chargesheet to enable such an accused to demonstrate that no case is made out against him and also to enable him to prepare his cross-examination and defence strategy. There is no quarrel up to this point even by the prosecution. The only apprehension of the prosecution is that if the documents are supplied at this stage, the appellant may misuse the same."