Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Eluru Gurappa Srinivas vs The State Of A.P. on 30 June, 2025
APHC010144192011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 604/2011
Between:
Donga Prasad ...PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 603/2011
Between:
Eluru Gurappa @ Srinivas ...PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kambhampati Ramesh Babu
Counsel for the Respondent:
Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following:
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
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025
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
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025
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.
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025
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 passed by the learnedII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Eluru, is correct, legal, and proper with respect
to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material
irregularities? And to what relief?”
9. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1wherein at Paragraph No.13
held as under:
“13. … In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the
procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification
for the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court
should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different
from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting
in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction
in such cases is not warranted.”
10. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale2,at Paragraph No.2 it is
held as under:
“…Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with
the concurrent findings of the courts below specially by re-
appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction….”
11. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh3, at Paragraph Nos.10
to 13 it is held as under:
“10. While it is true and now well-settled in a long catena of
cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be
ascribed to be discretionary – this discretion, however, as is
popularly informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and
not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion
which stands “informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and
disciplined by system” – resultantly only in the event of a glaring1
(2002) 6 SCC 650
2
AIR 1993 SC 1126
3
AIR 2002 SC 2229
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on
a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not to be called for.
It is not to be lightly exercised but only in exceptional situations
where the justice delivery system requires interference for
correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross
miscarriage of justice. In Nosibolla: Logendranath Jha and
Chinnaswamy Reddy (supra) as also in Thakur Das (Thakur Das
(Dead) by LRs v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., 1978 (1)
SCC 27) this Court with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms
recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of
evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for
being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view
being otherwise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in
the event of there being a failure of justice there can said to be no
limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power.
11. The High Court possesses a general power of
superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it. On its
administrative side, the power is known as the power of
superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of
revision. The High Court can at any stage even on its own motion,
if it so desires, and certainly when illegalities or irregularities
resulting in injustice are brought to its notice call for the records
and examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part
of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and
revisions and interlocutory applications -so also its right to
exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though
however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court,
however, under the provisions of Section 401 is very much
circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore.
12. Having regard to the aforesaid, we do feel it expedient to
record that in the contextual facts presently under consideration
before this Court, the High Court cannot but be said to have
exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order of
acquittal.
13. In any event, writing of a fresh judgment as directed by
the Court is rather a significant departure in the normal disposal of
revisional applications. Opportunities have been given for further
argument but would that by itself tilt the scale – this aspect of the
matter has already been noticed earlier, as such we need not
dilate thereon excepting recording that an extremely significant
departure from the normal form of Court orders stands challenged
in this Court.”
12. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred
supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025
iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a second appellate court.This
Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401
of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ cannot invoke it‟s revisional power as a Second Appellate
Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as
laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, Jagannath
ChowdharyandAppa Babu Ingale. However, this Court is not denuded of its
powers to examine whether judgments impugned are correct, legal and proper
with respect to their findings, sentence or even judgment and there are any
material irregularities. If there are manifest illegalities and interest of public
justice requires interference for the correction of those manifest illegalities or
to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate
the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion.
13. The learned Appellate Court confirmed the conviction for the
contravention underSection 52(A)(1) of „the Act.,‟ punishable under Section
68A of „the Act‟. For better understating of the case, it is apposite to extract
Section 52(A)(1) of „the Act‟ as under:
52A. Particulars to be included in [sound recording] and
video films.-
(1) No person shall publish a sound recording in respect of
any work unless the following particulars are displayed on the
sound recording and on any container thereof, namely:-
(a) the name and address of the person who has made
the sound recording;
(b) the name and address of the owner of the copyright
in such work; and
(c) the year of its first publication.
(2) No person shall publish a video film in respect of any work
unless the following particulars are displayed in the video film,
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025when exhibited, and on the video cassette or other container
thereof, namely:-
(a) if such work is cinematograph film required to be
certified for exhibition under the provisions of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952), a copy of the
certificate granted by the Board of Film Certification
under section 5A of that Act in respect of such work;
(b) the name and address of the person who has made
the video film and a declaration by him that he obtained
the necessary licence or consent from the owner of the
copyright in such work of making such video film; and
(c) the name and address of the owner for the copyright
in such work.
14. The punishment for violation of the provision under Section 52(A)(1) of
„the Act.,‟ is contemplated under Section 68A of „the Act‟which is as follows:
68A. Penalty for contravention of section 52A:-
Any person who publishes a sound recording or a video film in
contravention of the provisions of section 52A shall be
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine.
15. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 5, marked Exs.P1 to 3, and
M.O.Nos.1 to 9 for the prosecution. It is an admitted position that the seized
CDs are all pirated audio and video CDs of different companies. It is
incontrovertible that these CDs were recovered from the shops of the
petitioners. Indeed, P.W.2 and 3, though not support the cases of the
prosecution by turning hostile, it is their evidence that police inspected the
shops and seized computer discs from the shops of the petitioners under
mediators report at two different times. The signatures of P.W.2 and P.W.3
are there on the mediators report. P.W.5 testified that he conducted ride and
seized the M.O.Nos.1 to 9 from the shops of the petitioners. Therefore, the
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025
evidence of P.W.5 corroborates with the versions of P.W.2 and P.W.3 about
the ride and seizing of material objects. Of course, corroboration is only a rule
of prudence.
16. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in P.P. Beeran v. State of Kerala4held at para
No.3 as under:
“3…The case alleged against him shows that he was found in
possession of 23.5 grams of opium at the time when he was
intercepted and searched by PW2, sub-inspector of police. We
have noticed that two witnesses were called by PW2 at the
time of search out of whom one was examined as PW1 and
the other was not examined. But even the one examined
(PW1) did not support the prosecution and hence he was
treated as hostile. Though an argument was addressed by Mr.
R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the appellant
that the evidence of PW2, sub-inspector of police remained
uncorroborated, and therefore, that should not be made the
sole basis for conviction, it is too late in the day for us to reject
the testimony of PW2 on that ground alone. Even otherwise, it
cannot be said that evidence of PW2 remains uncorroborated
because the fact that opium was recovered from his person
and also Exhibit P2 which is an endorsement containing the
signature of the appellant could be treated as circumstances
corroborating the testimony of PW2”.
17. InVinod Ramchandra Dhakad v. M.S.A. Khan5at para No.13it is held
as under:
“13…In view of the authorities referred to by the learned
Counsel for both parties, the settled position of law is that
conviction can be based on the testimony of solitary witness,
even if he is a Police Officer, provided the Court is of opinion
that the witness is truthful and trust worthy. If the Court finds it
necessary, it may look for some corroboration to the testimony
of such witness. However, if the independent panch
witnesses, particularly in serious cases, are available but are
withheld and not examined by prosecution, adverse inference
4
(2001)9 SCC 571
5
MANU/MH/1694/2011
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025may be drawn against the prosecution. In the present case, for
the reasons noted above, it is difficult to hold that the
prosecution has intentionally withheld the panch witnesses
and, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the
prosecution on that count.”
18. InKaramjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 6 at para No.8it is
held as under:
“8…The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the
same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is
no principle of law that without corroboration by independent
witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon.The
presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in
favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a
proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without
good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and no principle of general
application can be laid down.
19. In the instant case, mere irregularity of the investigating officer in
conducting the search would not vitiate the seizure of the material objects and
it would not affect the trial unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to
the petitioners. The petitioners could not establish any prejudice in not affixing
identity slips on the material objects seized from the possession of the
petitioners from their respective shops. It is not a ground to disbelieve with the
testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution. P.W.1 is a retired Deputy
Superintendent of Police and had been working as an Investigator of Indian
Music Industry conducted a survey in Eluru Town and came to know that the
petitioners in their shops were circulating cassettes and selling them by
reproducing them without any rights. Hence, he lodged a report with P.W4
6
MANU/SC/0245/2003
10
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025
vide Ex.P1. No particulars were included in material objects about the name
and address of the persons who made it and owner of the copyright in such
work, or of its publication. The petitioners without having a proper licence
granted by the owner of the copyright or by the registrar of copyrights under
„the Act‟ indulged in reproducing the cassettes and CDs and circulating them
in the public for gain.
20. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of A.P. v. Nagoti Venkataraman7held
at para-No.11 as under:
“11…In view of the above findings of the courts below, the
offence would fall under Section 68A of the Act. It would,
therefore, be unnecessary for the prosecution to track on and
trace out the owner of the copyright to come and adduce
evidence of infringement of copyright. The absence thereof
does not constitute a lack of essential element of infringement
of copyright. If the particulars on video films etc. as mandated
under Section 52A do not find place, it would be infringement
of copyright”.
21. Further the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Shanmugam v. State by Inspector
of Police, Tamil Nadu8 at para-No.12 held as under:
“12…Perusal of the evidence in its entirety clearly shows that
the offence had taken place at 2.00 a.m. by which time PW-1
had already left the place of occurrence and at the relevant
point of time the Accused and the deceased were alone inside
the premises of the office of the Video Piracy Cell. Under the
above circumstances, it was for the Accused to explain under
what circumstances the deceased was dead. In our view, the
Accused has failed to offer any cogent explanation in this
regard. We are of the view that the chain of circumstances has
been completely proved and established beyond reasonable
doubt.”
7
MANU/SC/1267/1996
8
MANU/SC/0237/2021
11
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025
22. Furthermorein Garapati Prasada Rao v. Parnandi Saroja9at para-No.7
held as under:
“7…above the question to be considered is whether the
viewers of the extended 13 episodes of the serial have got the
impression that the subsequent episodes are a continuation of
the original 13 episodes written by the complainant. That is a
matter to be decided on evidence to be adduced before the
trial court. Therefore, unless there is evidence on that aspect it
is not possible to decide whether there is infringement of the
copyright of the complainant and so it is not possible to quash
the proceedings under S. 482, Cr. P.C. on that allegation.
23. Nay, in Naresh Singh Thakur Vs. State of A.P10at para-No.13 held as
under:
“13…It is no doubt true that the landlord of the premises had
not been examined, but however on the material available on
record the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, findings had been
recorded by both the courts below in detail. These are well
considered findings recorded by both the court of first instance
and also the appellate court on appreciation of the evidence.
The relevant provisions of the Act also had been taken into
consideration by both the courts below. The only question
which had been argued in elaboration is in relation to PW-3
having been declared hostile. In the light of the decisions
relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supra,
especially in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by
both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence of PW-1
and PW-2 as well, the findings recorded by both the Courts
below cannot be found fault.”
24. P.W.1 made a complaint against the petitioners as he got information
that they were in possession and selling pirated CDs. The evidence of P.W.1
is supporting the version of P.W.5. Reappreciation of the evidence is not
proper while invoking the powers under Sections 397 and 401 of „the Cr.P.C‟.
9
MANU/AP/0036/1992
10
MANU/AP/0198/2010
12
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025
There are no procedural material irregularities. There was no misreading of
the evidence. There was no flagrant miscarriage of justice. There are no
perverse findings. In a concurrent judgment sustaining conviction, this Court
cannot sit like a second appellate court for reevaluating the evidence.
Therefore, the conviction under 68A of „the Act.,‟ shall be maintainable.
25. About the imposition of sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment, it
is fairly conceded by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that there were
neither prior similar adverse antecedents nor subsequent negative
antecedents against the petitioners that they had indulged in a similar offence.
The petitioners are aged about 57 and 45 years respectively. The offence had
taken place in the year 2004. Nearly 21 years have passed by. The right to get
speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar 11. This
right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right
to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar12.
26. The petitioners had already undergone 7 days of incarceration. The
petitioners have also paid the fine amount. The petitioners gotold aged
parents, wife, and children who are subsisting on the earnings of the
petitioners. Section 68A of „the Act.,‟ does not prescribe the minimum
punishment. The petitioners had already undergone more than 7 days in
11
Air 1979 SC 1360
12
2000 (1) BLJR 37
13
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025
incarceration pursuant to the confirmation of the conviction and sentenceby
the learned Appellate Court on the judgment of the learned Trial Court. The
learned counsel for the petitioners volunteered that an amount of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) may be imposed each on the petitioners
excluding the fine amount already been deposited by them before the learned
Trial Court as a measure of penance. The said voluntary statement is
approved and recorded.
27. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the two revision cases
are disposed of by this common order confirming the conviction for the offence
under Section 68A of „the Act.,‟ while reducing the sentence of imprisonment
to which the petitioners had already undergone and imposing a further
sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each on the
petitioners excluding the fine amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand
Only) which had already paid by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court.
28. The learned Trial Court is directed to take required follow up steps.
29. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory
applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 30.06.2025
KMS
14
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.604 and 603 of 2011
Dated 30.06.2025
115
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 604 and 603 of 2011
30.06.2025
W
KMS