Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14385
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dr Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Donga Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 604/2011 | CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 603/2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kambhampati Ramesh Babu
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
The court affirmed that in revisional jurisdiction, findings of fact by lower courts should not be re-evaluated unless there is clear evidence of manifest injustice or procedural irregularities.
Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 52(A)(1) and Section 68A - Conviction for contravention of copyright law involving pirated media - Petitioners sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine - Key legal issue was the validity of the conviction despite lacking adverse precedents and delay in case processing. (Paras 2, 12, 25)
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - High Court's discretion to interfere with concurrent findings under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is limited; must not re-appreciate evidence unless there is a manifest illegality or severe miscarriage of justice. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Two revision petitions arose from the concurrent conviction of petitioners for copyright infringement involving pirated audio and video CDs. The trial court found them guilty under the relevant sections, sentencing them to imprisonment and fines.
Findings of Court:
Conviction was upheld, but sentence adjusted to imprisonment already served and additional fines imposed, with recognition of the petitioners' current life circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial was fair given the absence of a local mediator and the consequences of delayed justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial's fairness despite procedural irregularities, emphasizing that the revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute evidence assessments by lower courts.
Result: Conviction confirmed; sentence modified with additional fines imposed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and charges against petitioners. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments of both parties regarding conviction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's consideration of the case. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal precedents on revisional powers and evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. conditions under which revisional jurisdiction is exercised. (Para 12 , 24) |
| 6. final judgment and penalty imposed. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
COMMON ORDER:
The two Criminal Revision Cases, arise out of two criminal appeals which come out of one calendar judgment, have been heard and disposed of by way of this common order.
2. The revision petitioners are accused in C.C.No.1219 of 2004. The learned II Additional I Class of Magistrate, Eluru, after an elaborate trial, found the petitioners guilty of the contravention under Section 52 (A)(1)of the Copyright Act, 1957 (for short „the Act‟) punishable under Section 68A „the Act.,‟ and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (06) months, and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred Only) each, in default they shall suffer simple imprisonment for three (03) months.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
4. SriKambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submits that the learned Courts below failed to observe that non-securing of local inhabitant as mediatorwas fatal to the case of the prosecution; that the joint trial conducted had caused prejudice; and that the ingredients of Section 52 (A)(1) of „the Act.,‟ were not attracted. He further argued that the failure to obtaina search warrant had caused prejudice to the petitioners and that when P.W.2 and P.W.3 mediators had turned volte-face, it is not proper to convict the petitioners; the conviction of petitioners solely based on the evidence of P.W.1 is improper; and he urged to set aside the judgment of the learned Appellate Court.
5. Alternatively, it is submitted that the alleged offence had taken place in the year 2004; nearly 21 years have passed by. The petitioners are aged about 57 and 45 respectively. The learned Trial Court also observed that there were no adverse antecedents before the alleged occurrence. The petitionershave wife and children and old aged parents subsisting on the income of the petitioners. The petitioners have undergone more than 7 days in incarceration. The petitioners‟ right to speedy disposal of the criminal revision cases as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being infringed and urged to sentence the petitioners to which they had already undergone, while volunteering that the petitioners would pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each excluding the fine amount already paid by them before the learned Trial Court before filing appeal and implored to dispose of the criminal revision cases in the interest of justice.
6. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with concurrent conviction on the petitioners inasmuch there was no misreading of evidence and no flagrant miscarriage of justice. Moreover, there are no perverse findings. Evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution cannot be reappreciated by invoking the powers under Section 397 and 401 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ and urged to dismiss the criminal revision cases while conceding that there are no prior or subsequent adverse similar antecedents against the petitioners and it has taken more than two decades for hearing and disposing of the criminal revision cases.
7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
8. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.Nos.04 of 2007 and 245 of 2006 dated 11.03.2011 pass
