2017 (8) TMI 967 - SC - Indian Laws

Violation of copyright - stealing the source code of a software known as Quick Recovery developed by the complainant s company - Offence under various provisions of the IPC, Information Technology Act as well as the Copyright Act - whether the approach of the courts below is correct in refusing to supply the hard disk and compact disk to the appellant herein? - Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents - Held that - The appellant, when given the cloned copy of the hard disk, is not able to erase or change or remove the same. If that can be achieved by putting some safeguards, it would be the ideal situation inasmuch as provisions of Section 207 of the Code which ensure fair trial by giving due opportunity to the accused to defend himself shall be fulfilled and the apprehension of the prosecution would also be taken care of. We find that CBI, under similar circumstances in the case of Rupesh Kumar, accepted the order of the trial court whereby directions were given to the CBI to supply the hard disk. In the said case, the trial court found that there was no answer from the CBI whether the software in question was unique and there was no other software in the market for the recovery of lost data from the logical cracked hard disk. Number of softwares are available in the market which negated the arguments of CBI that by supplying the mirror image of the documents, the complainant will lose its money and it will be in violation of the Copyright Act, 1957. In that case, the Court took undertaking from the appellant that he would not misuse the copy of cloned CD. We, thus, are of the opinion that in order to comply with the provision of Section 207 of the Code, the hard disks marked Q-2, 9 and 20 be supplied to the appellant subject to the following conditions (a)Before supplying the said CDs, the contents thereof shall be recorded in the Court, in the presence of complainant as well as the appellant and both of them shall attest the veracity thereof by putting their signatures so that there is no dispute about these contents later thereby removing the possibility of tempering thereof by the appellant. (b)The appellant shall not make use of the source code contained in the said CDs or misuse the same in any manner and give an affidavit of undertaking to this effect in the trial court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Registration of FIR and allegations against the appellant.
2. Seizure of property and subsequent legal proceedings.
3. Application for release of seized property.
4. Supply of deficient copies of documents to the appellant.
5. Right to fair trial and compliance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Registration of FIR and Allegations Against the Appellant:
A complaint was lodged by the Director of M/s. Unistal Systems Private Limited, alleging that the appellant stole the source code of the software 'Quick Recovery' and sold it under the name 'Prodatadoctor'. The FIR was registered by the CBI on July 23, 2007, under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 63 and 63B read with Section 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The appellant was accused of unauthorizedly misappropriating the source code and selling it through his company.

2. Seizure of Property and Subsequent Legal Proceedings:
The CBI conducted a search and seizure operation on August 3, 2007, at the appellant's premises, seizing certain documents and materials. The appellant filed an application for the release of the seized property, which was initially rejected by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, on March 3, 2008. However, the High Court of Delhi set aside this order on May 18, 2009, directing the concerned Magistrate to reconsider the application.

3. Application for Release of Seized Property:
The trial court, on September 3, 2009, directed the Investigating Officer to determine if copies of the hard disk could be prepared with Unite Protect Software to prevent the appellant from using it during the case's pendency. The Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) confirmed that a cloned copy of the hard disk could be prepared.

4. Supply of Deficient Copies of Documents to the Appellant:
The appellant filed an application on July 20, 2010, under Section 207/238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking copies of the hard disks (Q-2, 9, and 20) relied upon by the prosecution. The Magistrate rejected this application on November 6, 2013, and the High Court dismissed the appellant's petition challenging this order on June 13, 2016. The appellant argued that as per the GEQD report, cloned copies could be prepared, and there was no issue in supplying the same to him.

5. Right to Fair Trial and Compliance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Section 207 mandates that the prosecution must furnish the accused with copies of documents relied upon, free of cost, to ensure a fair trial. The appellant argued that without the copies of the hard disks, he could not effectively defend himself. The prosecution's concern was that the appellant might misuse the documents. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's right to a fair trial required access to these documents and proposed safeguards to prevent misuse.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing that the hard disks marked Q-2, 9, and 20 be supplied to the appellant with the following conditions:
(a) The contents of the CDs shall be recorded in the Court in the presence of both parties, and both shall attest to their veracity.
(b) The appellant shall not misuse the source code and provide an affidavit of undertaking to this effect in the trial court.

The appeal was allowed in these terms, ensuring compliance with Section 207 of the Code and addressing the prosecution's concerns.