Prahlad Jain vs The State of Rajasthan

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is facing trial for the offence u/s 51,52-A,63 and 68-A of the Copy Right Act and under Sections 4/6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. The petitioner moved an application in the trial Court u/s 451 Cr.P.C. for delivery of 1700 blank CDs. The application was rejected vide order dt. 13.02.2009. Being aggrieved with the same, revision petition was preferred but, the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Bhilwara.

Submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that both the Courts below have committed illegality in not passing the order of delivery of blank CDs on ''Supardginama'', that the CDs will be destroyed as trial is likely to take some time, no offence is made out for blank CDs.

Learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. It appears from the orders passed by both the Courts below that 6289 pirated CDs, DVD and some blank CDs were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

Submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner for delivery of blank CDs cannot be considered at this stage. However, it will be open for the petitioner to move another application after the statement of investigating officer and other material and relevant witnesses are recorded.

I do not find any abuse of process of law in passing the impugned orders by both the Courts below. In these circumstances, this petition is dismissed with liberty as mentioned above. Trial Court is directed to record the statement of investigating officer and other material witnesses on priority basis.