Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses To Set Aside Piracy Conviction, Directs Cassette Shop Owner To Serve Sentence

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with the conviction of a Proddatur shop owner for selling and possessing pirated audio cassettes, directing him to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining sentence. Justice Subhendu Samanta, in an order passed on December 3, 2025, upheld the findings of the trial court and the Sessions Court, which had found the man guilty under Sections 63, 65 and 68A of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court held that no ground was made out in the criminal revision to disturb the earlier conclusions. The case dates back to July 2000, when the police raided the shop following a complaint by an investigator of the Indian Music Industry. A large number of duplicate audio cassettes were seized along with original copies, and a charge sheet was filed under various provisions of the Copyright Act. After trial, the Judicial Magistrate convicted the shop owner for copyright infringement, illegal possession of duplication equipment, and for selling cassettes without the statutory particulars required under Section 52A. The Sessions Court later upheld the conviction while reducing part of the sentence. The shop owner then approached the High Court in revision. Before the High Court, he argued that the prosecution had not examined any actual copyright owner, and that the investigator who lodged the complaint lacked authority to represent them. He also contended that the seizure was illegal since it was not conducted in the presence of independent witnesses, and cited Kerala High Court judgments to claim that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not proved. He sought the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The State countered that the investigator had produced a notarised authorisation from the Indian Music Industry, that the seizure was carried out in the presence of witnesses, and that the cassettes lacked the mandatory details required under Section 52A, establishing the offences. The High Court accepted the State's case, noting that the investigator was duly authorised and competent to lodge the complaint. It found that the shop owner was in possession of a substantial quantity of fake cassettes and machinery used to duplicate originals, for which he offered no explanation. The court also held that the prosecution had proved the absence of mandatory statutory particulars on the seized cassettes. Declining to extend the benefit of probation, the court observed, “But, in my view, the said provision under Section 360 of Cr.P.C., is not applicable in this case. The Petitioner is alleged to have been engaged in the business of selling piracy cassettes. Petitioner is not within the age of 25 years at the time of offence. Thus, considering the entire aspect, in my view, the present Petitioner does not entitle to get benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the Order of conviction as recorded by the learned Appellate Court appears to be justified.” Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, vacated the interim suspension of sentence and directed the shop owner to appear before the trial court to serve the remaining portion of his sentence. Case Title: Gajulapalli Mallikarjuna Parasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No. 1840/2008 For Petitioner: Advocate C Sharan Reddy Click Here To Read/Download Order

Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses To Set Aside Piracy Conviction, Directs Cassette Shop Owner To Serve Sentence

Ayushi Shukla

Tags