JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal, stands directed, by the appellant, State of Himachal Pradesh, against the verdict, recorded, by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in, Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2008, of conviction, and, consequential therewith sentence, pronounced, upon, the accused, by, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P., on 28.7.2008/31.7.2008, rather pronounced, an order of acquittal, vis-a-vis, the accused.

2. The facts relevant to the case, are, that on 15.2.2007, SI/SHO Raj Kumar met ASI manjeet Singh, HC Sher Singh No. 276, who were on patrolling duty at the bus stand, Sujanpur at about 4.15 pm. Ajay Kumar, an executive Anti Piracy Super Cassette Industries, Ltd. Noida (UP) met them and disclosed that he is employed as an Executive Anti Piracy in the above mentioned company. The company has authorized him to check the production of pirated CDs. He informed the police officials that one Rajesh Kumar, s/o Kundan Kumar, r/o Ward No.9 chaupata Muhala Sujanpur is running a business of selling pirated CDs to the customers in his shop Ashiana Music Centre. If the raid is conducted, many pirated CDs could be recovered from his shop. The police along with a witness Prahalad sent to the shop of the accused Rajesh and found him in person. They searched his shop and police recovered 17 pirated MP-3 CDs from the drawer of his counter. The CDs were checked and tested by Ajay Kumar which were found to be pirated. The same were taken into possession and sealed in a parcel. The sample of seal ''R'' was affixed. The sample of seal was handed over to Ajay Kumar. The same was taken into possession vide seizure memo on the spot and in the presence of the witness. One copy of the seizure memo was supplied to the accused. The accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 52, 52A, 63 and 68A- Copy Right Act No. 14 of 1957. The ruka was sent through HC Sher Singh No. 276 on which the case FIR was registered. SHO prepared the spot plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also obtained the test report from Ajay Kumar and has taken into possession his Authorisation Certificate. After investigation the challan was prepared and was presented before the court. Prima facie evidence was found against the accused on which charge was framed and to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The accused was charged, for committing, an, offence punishable under Section 63, and, under Section 68A, of, the Copy Right Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement, of, the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stood recorded, by the trial Court, wherein, he made disclosures qua his false implication. However, he did not choose, to, lead any defence evidence.

4. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings, of, conviction qua the accused/respondent herein.

5. The respondent herein, becoming aggrieved, from, the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court, preferred thereagainst, an, appeal before, the, learned First Appellate Court, and, the latter Court set aside the verdict of conviction, as, initially pronounced, by the learned trial Court. The Additional Advocate General, has, concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, standing, not, based on a proper appreciation, of, the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal rather warranting reversal, by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced, by, findings of conviction.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal, recorded, by