Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The sheet anchor for the respondent's version has been that the accused-petitioner had stolen the source code of a software developed by the complainant i.e. M/s Unistal Systems Pvt. Ltd., known as "Quick Recovery" and the same was put up for sale on the company owned by him after making some cosmetic changes in the software for a profit. It is stated that vide order dated 3rd September, 2009, the Trial Court directed the IO to communicate in writing to the concerned GEQD and to find out whether the cloned copies regarding hard discs can be prepared with such unite protect software embedded upon it and without losing its evidentiary value and also as such that the accused-petitioner cannot use it till the pendency of the case and thereafter, if the GEQD's expert gives an opinion in affirmative that it can be so done, IO is directed to get prepared a cloned copies and further copy thereof could not be given to the accused. Thus, the communication to this effect was given by CBI to Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents at Hyderabad on which the Govt. Examiner opined that if cloned copy of the hard discs was required then the same could be prepared by the laboratory on supply of a sterile (new) hard disc of 500 GB hard disc but such cloned copies could not be write-protected. Thus, on this basis, the learned Judge, vide order dated 3rd September, 2009, held that it was not possible to get prepared cloned copies with such unite protect software and no copy can be supplied to the accused. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the said application contained the original source code Quick Recovery for FAT and NTFS and as such, the same cannot be supplied to the accused. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that except the three hard discs and one compact disc as mentioned in the application, all other articles and documents have been supplied to the accused/petitioner.