Neither revision u/s 482 required against an interlocutory order.

1. Crime No.100 of 1985 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station was registered against four accused for offences punishable under sections 420 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act on the basis of the statement made by one Satheesh Sathyan, Public Relations Manager and power-of-attorney holder, Tharangini Records, Trivandrum.

2. Tharangini records claims to be the exclusive producers and distributors of cassettes recorded from the original plates manufactured in the Tharangini records. It is alleged that the accused are reproducing without permission certain cassets for which Tharangini records is having absolute copyright. In the course of investigation the police searched the premises where the petitioner is running the ‘Swathi recording unit’ and seized certain articles including equipments purported to have been used for making the infringed copies of records. They are kept in police custody itself as directed by the Magistrate. The case is even now pending investigation.

3. The de facto complainant Satheesh Sathyan filed Crl.M.P.No.1302 of 1985, One Sebastian 3ohn filed Crl.M.P.No.1301 of 1985 and the revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1371 of 1985, all before the Magistrate under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting interim custody of the articles. Accepting the argument of the Asst. Public Prosecutor that the articles are case properties which require to be used at the trial for proving the allegations, the Magistrate rejected all the three petitions. Revision is against that order.

4. All the articles were admittedly seized from the possession of the revision petitioner whose ownership and right to possession over the articles is not disputed by anybody. The main objection is that they are articles alleged to be used for the commission of the offence and at this stage when investigation is only in progress no order for disposal of property could be made since they have to be subjected to examination by sound and track experts for the purpose of getting their opinion and used as evidence in the case. The revision petitioner contends that he has not committed any offence and no incriminating material has been seized from him. According to him, he is having the license to conduct recording of music and programmes which was produced before the Magistrate and he will be put to heavy loss if they are not returned. That aspect of the matter I shall consider later.

5. Section 64 of the Copyright Act as amended in 1984 reads:

“64. Power of Police to seize infringing copies.-

(1) Where a Magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under section 63 in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work, it shall be lawful for any police officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, to seize without any warrant from the Magistrate, all copies of the work wherever found, which appear to him to be infringing copies of the work and all copies so seized shall, as soon as practicable, be produced before the Magistrate.

(2) Any person having an interest in any copies of a work seized under sub- section (1) may, within fifteen days of such seizure, make an application to the Magistrate for such copies being restored to him and the Magistrate, after hearing the applicant and the complainant and making such further inquiry, as may be necessary, shall make such order on the application, as he may deem fit.”

6. The provisions of section 64(1) and (2) of the Copyright Act were relied on by the State to contend that seizure of the work and plates used for making infringing copies, wherever found, is permitted without warrant and any person claiming interest on the materials will have to apply to the Magistrate under sub- section (2). The power of the police for seizure is not challenged by the petitioner. He only wants the materials to be given back after they are examined by the experts to find out whether any infringement of copyright was effected with the