Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth 'Cr.P.C.'), sole applicant Bablu Alam has preferred this revision challenging the order dated 11.03.2004 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Raigarh affirming his conviction for the offence under Sections 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (henceforth 'Act, 1957') punishable under Section 63 of the Act, 1957 whereas modified the sentence of imprisonment for one year to imprisonment for six months and further reduced the fine sentence from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Core facts as projected by the prosecution during the course of trial are as under:--

1.1 On 8.8.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. near Jagdamba Ashram, Chakradhar Nagar Road, Raigarh, on the written report (Ex. P-1) of J.S. Parihar, Senior Investigator (PW-1), I.M.I. Company, the police officer seized 104 duplicate audio cassettes and 56 forged audio cassettes of different companies, for which copyright was reserved in favour of certain companies, which was being offered for sale to customers and in such cassettes; name and address of the person who has made it and the name and address of the owner of the copyright in such work and the year of its first publication was not mentioned, which is in contravention of Sections 51 and 52A of the Act, 1957 punishable under Sections 63, 68A of the Act, 1957, and thereafter, after due investigation, charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences were preferred against the applicant in the jurisdictional criminal court.

1.2 On charges put to the accused/applicant, he pleaded no guilty and entered into defence by stating that prosecution case is out and out false and he has been falsely implicated in the offence in question.

1.3 In order to establish the charges so levelled, prosecution has examined four witnesses and brought 24 documents in support of its case, whereas applicant has examined two witnesses in his defence namely Mohd. Sammem (DW-1) and Vimal Kumar (DW-2) but no document has been brought on record.

2. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, trial Magistrate by its order dated 7.8.2003 found the applicant's guilty for offence under Section 51 of the Act, 1957 punishable under Section 63 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 50,000/-.

3. On appeal being preferred by applicant, the appellate Court maintained the conviction recorded, whereas reduced the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment and also reduced fine amount from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Against this order of conviction and sentence, present revision has been filed.

4. Shri U.K.S. Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that both the courts below have committed serious legal error in convicting the applicant for the offence under section 51(b)(i) of the Act, 1957 as in order to constitute the offence under Section 51(b)(i) of the Act, 1957 identification of the owner being an essential element for infringement of copyright. He would, alternatively, submit that at the best, alleged act it can be said to be an offence under Section 52A of the Act of 1957, which is punishable under Section 68A of the Act, 1957 and the applicant has already remained in custody for more than 24 days, which is sufficient sentence for contravention of Section 52-A of the Act, 1957, punishable under Section 68-A of the Act, 1957, therefore, the jail sentence be modified accordingly.

5. Opposing the submissions made, by learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri Prasun Bhaduri, learned Govt. Advocate for the State would submit that for constitution of the offence under Section 51 of the Act, 1957, identification of the owner is not an essential element for infringement of copyright, as such, the applicant has rightly been convicted for violation of Section 51(b)(1) of the Act,