The appellant has the statutory right to receive copies of seized documents under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prepare his defense effectively.

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Mr Alok Gupta, Director of M/s Unistal Systems (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”), a first information report (FIR) was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 23-7-2007 wherein the appellant was made an accused. In the said FIR, the complainant had alleged that on or around 11-3-2005, the appellant had stolen the “source code” of a software known as “Quick Recovery” developed by the complainant's company and thereafter put it for sale on the website of the appellant company under the name “Prodatadoctor”. A case was registered under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 63 and 63-B read with Section 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. CBI took up the investigation and seized certain documents and material from the office/residential premises of the appellant after conducting search and seizure on 3-8-2007. The appellant moved, sometime in January 2008, an application seeking release of the seized property. This application was rejected by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 3-3-2008. The High Court of Delhi set aside this order in Tarun Tyagi v. CBI, which was preferred by the appellant against the order of the trial court rejecting this application. The order of the High Court is dated 18-5-2009. By this order, the High Court restored the application for release with direction to the Magistrate concerned to deal with the application afresh. Operative portion of the order reads as under:

“2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire business of the petitioner is affected because of the seizure of all the electronic hardware equipments although incriminating the evidence, if any, may be only on some of them. He further submits that although the charge-sheet was filed in June 2008, no cognizance has yet been taken of the offence, if any, by the learned ACMM.

3. The learned counsel for the parties were unable to inform the Court whether the opinion of GEQD on the seized electronic hardware equipment has been received by the trial court.

4. In view of the facts as noticed hereinabove, it is directed that the learned ACMM will first and foremost if not done already, consider whether cognizance should be taken of the offence, if any, on the basis of the charge-sheet filed. This will be done within ten days of the receipt by the learned ACMM of the certified copy of this order.”

2. In the meantime, on 28-6-2006, CBI had filed the charge-sheet after completing the investigation. On 27-5-2009, the trial court took cognizance of offence under Section 381 of the Penal Code, 1860, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 63 and 63-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. Insofar as the application of the appellant for release of the seized property is concerned, the trial court passed the orders dated 3-9-2009 thereupon, directing the investigating officer to find out as to whether copies of the hard disc in question can be prepared with Unite Protect Software so that the appellant-accused is unable to use it till the pendency of the case. The Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Directorate of Forensic Science, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 1-1-2009, addressed to the investigating officer, opined that cloned copy of the hard disk can be prepared.

3. After receipt of this report, the appellant preferred another application on 20-7-2010 under Sections 207/238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) seeking supply of deficient copies of documents, such as hard disk relied upon by the prosecution i.e. Q-2, 9 and 20. The learned Magistrate rejected this application vide orders dated 6-11-2013. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court has, vide impugned judgment dated 13-6-2016, dismissed the