1. As the issues raised in all the three captioned applications are the same and the parties are also the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The breakup of the three captioned applications is as under:-

3. "If a creative person steals your idea, he's killing his creative ability, if he steals your art, he's killing his art, if he makes it available to the world, it won't create the impact you could have created, because it wasn't from the right source." Michael Bassey Johnson.

4. The facts giving rise to all the three captioned applications may be summarised as under:

"4.1 The applicant herein is the owner of copyright in the artistic work of industrial drawings registered with the Registrar of Copyright vide registration A109401/2014 dated 25th March 2014 under the title "Zero Effluent Discharge Coal Gasification System". The applicant has alleged that the drawings of the industrial design were stolen by the original accused No. 1 and reproduced in the three dimensional material form i.e. in the form of a machine which was setup in the factory premises of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (original accused Nos.2 and 3).

4.2 The petitioner lodged a First Information Report being C.R. No. I3945 of 2016 with the 'A' Division Police Station, Morbi for the offences punishable under Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the First Information Report the Police officials, in the course of the investigation, arrived at the satisfaction that the copyright of the applicant has been violated under Section 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and therefore, seized the machine by putting a seal on the plant machinery situated inside the factory premises of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

4.3 Upon completion of the investigation by the Police officials a chargesheet came to be filed.

4.4 The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 preferred an application Exhibit: 9 under Section 64(2) of the Copyright Act for the interim release of the seized machine by opening the seal affixed on the machine.

4.5 The applicant, on the other hand, preferred applications under Sections 64(2) and 66 of the Copyright Act, 1957 Exhibits: 19 and 20 respectively and prayed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct on inquiry before ordering restoration and delivery of possession of the machine to the original copyright holder of the artistic work.

4.6 The Chief Judicial Magistrate vide a common order dated 24th August 2016 rejected the applications filed by the applicant Exhibits : 19 and 20 and allowed the application Exhibit: 9 filed by the accused Nos. 2 and 3.

4.7 Being dissatisfied and grieved by the common order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morbi rejecting the applications filed by the applicant and allowing the application Ex