Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. As far as the decision in the case of Tarun Tyagi (supra) is concerned, it is important to note that the accused therein had allegedly stolen source code of a software and had put it on sale on a web-site with a different name and the charge-sheet was filed on the basis of such hard disk. It is in the light of such circumstances following observations were made in paragraph no.10 :

"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 7 cri wp 929.18.odt 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 trial that every document relied upon by the prosecution has to be supplied to the 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."

The hard-disk therein contained the source code of the data recovery software. The defence of the accused therein was this source code was exclusively prepared by him and was his property. Whereas the prosecution was alleging that the CDs which were recovered were in fact same or similar to the software stolen in the year 2005. It was therefore for the prosecution to demonstrate that the seized material which contained the source code was the property of the complainant. Whereas the accused was to demonstrate that the source code contained 8 cri wp 929.18.odt in those CDs was either different from the source code of the complainant and it was developed by him. It is in such a fact situation that it was observed that in order to prove his defence the copies of the seized CDs ought to have been supplied to the accused. It is thus apparent that the offence itself was allegedly committed in respect of a software contained in the CDs. As against this, in the matter in hand, the offence does not pertain to anything contained in the CCTV footage but it only allegedly demonstrates as to how the accused/petitioner could be said to have committed the offence. It is only by way of corroboration to its case that the CCTV footage is being sought to be relied upon by the prosecution. Therefore, in the matter in hand no prejudice can be said to be likely to be caused to the petitioner by belated production of the CCTV footage. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to derive any benefit from the decision in the case of Tarun Tyagi (supra).