B. N. CHATURVEDI J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner seeking his release on bail in case fir No. RC SIB 2006 E00 10 dated 8th december, 2006 registered with CBI EOU-V, under Section 120b IPC read with Section 52a punishable under Sections 68a/63/65 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957. ( 2 ) ON a secret source information to the effect that a racket operated by the petitioner of M/s Shashi Audio and Video (P)Ltd. was involved in infringement of copyrights in cinematograph films by making, manufacturing, duplicating, distributing, importing, selling, offering for sale, hiring, offering for rent or hire unauthorised copies thereof in the form of video Compact Disc, Video Cassette, Digital versatile Disc, Laser Disc (Optical Discs) etc, in gross violation of the Copyright Act, 1957 a raid was conducted on 7th December, 2006 at a number of premises in Delhi including C-28, DSIDC Packing Complex, kirti Nagar, New Delhi-plant unit of M/s shashi Audio and Video (P) Ltd. and its office-cum-godown at a-168, WHS Timber Market, kirti Nagar, New Delhi. In the course of raid conducted in the presence of independent witnesses recovery of a huge stock of pirated vcds, DVDs, MP3, MP5, inlay cards, stampers, CD Writers, manufacturing/copying plates used for manufacturing VCDs etc. in gross violation of the provisions of copyright Act, 1957 was effected, which were eventually seized. In view of the aforesaid recoveries of infringing materials, a case FIR No. RC SIB 2006 E0010 dated 8th December, 2006 under Section 120b ipc read with Section 52a of the Copyright act, 1957 punishable under Sections 68a/63/65 and 69 of the copyright Act, 1957 was registered against the petitioner and others. The seizures of incriminating materials effected also include pirated VCDs of latest films and MP3. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was found involved in activities of duplicating various cinematographic films and music in VCDs and other forms through its advanced unit worth crores of rupees having a production capacity of 20,000 CDs per day. ( 4 ) PLEADING for bail the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in custody ever since his arrest on 20th January, 2007 and in view of bail to his three co-accused by the court of Sessions, he also deserves to be enlarged on bail. ( 4 ) PLEADING for bail the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in custody ever since his arrest on 20th January, 2007 and in view of bail to his three co-accused by the court of Sessions, he also deserves to be enlarged on bail. He referred to a bail order dated 24th August, 2006 passed in Bail Application no. 2965/2006 by this court in a similar case of infringement of copyright registered under Sections 63/65/68a of the Copyright act read with Section 7 of the Cinematograph act and Section 420/34 and 120b IPC wherein the accused was granted bail on the ground of his confinement in custody for 40 days and also as the maximum punishment for offences relating to infringement of copyright was noticed to be three years' imprisonment. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner was simply doing a job work on the orders placed by various companies without knowing that the job so assigned was being got done by the parties in violation of relevant provisions of the Copyright Act. It was submitted that the alleged incriminating materials having been seized now being in possession of the investigating agency and the witnesses of recovery being mostly cbi officials, there can be no apprehension of tampering with the evidence or influencing the investigation in the event of petitioner's release on bail. This apart, it was pleaded that the petitioner is suffering from hypertension which is evident from the fact that he continues to be admitted in Central Jail hospital from the very date of his arrest as a follow up case of hypertension and is under regular treatment there. It was argued that his continuance in custody is likely to aggravate his ailment for want of proper medical care. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the CBI opposed the release of the petitioner on bail primarily on the ground that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the release of the petitioner on bail at this juncture is likely to provide him with an opportunity to tamper with evidence by influencing the witnesses. He maintained that the petitioner inspite of ample opportunities failed to provide information/documents including Censor certificates and copyright licenses etc. to come clean. He maintained that the petitioner inspite of ample opportunities failed to provide information/documents including Censor certificates and copyright licenses etc. to come clean. He was found non-cooperative in investigation inasmuch as he resorted to dilatory tactics with a view to hamper the pace of investigation. It was pointed out that three co-accused who have been granted bail are not similarly placed as unlike the petitioner, who is accused of being manufacturer of the infringing material, they were simply dealers found in possession of infringing materials. Learned counsel for the CBI further pointed out that contrary to the petitioner's claim that out of 142 stampers seized from the two premises of the petitioner's company, 40 stampers were of Nupur marketing for doing their job work, the statement of the proprietor of Nupur marketing would show that in fact only 19 stampers were for job work of Nupur marketing. ( 6 ) LEARNED Senior counsel for the petitioner by way of rejoinder contended that the petitioner never claimed 40 stampers to be of Nupur Marketing and according to him in respect of Nupur Marketing only 19 stampers were seized by CBI and all job orders in relation thereto have already been submitted by the petitioner to the CBI. It was argued that mere recovery of stampers is not conclusive evidence of infringement as unless production is shown to have been done from such stampers no infringement can be said to have been committed. According to learned Senior counsel only in a very few cases CDs manufactured from stampers have been seized. His plea therefore was that all 165 stampers were not to be taken into account. It was added that certain stampers were received from parties who wanted to get their job work done but no production actually took place as job orders and Censor Certificates were not received from the parties concerned. ( 7 ) IT was not disputed during hearing that the entire infringing material, as indicated in the seizure memo, were recovered and seized from the two premises of M/s Shashi audio and Video (P) Ltd. Sustenance to the petitioner's claim that his company was simply doing job work could be supplied by furnishing requisite information and/or documents in the nature of orders for job work. The petitioner was time and again, by way of written notices in this regard, issued by the investigating agency, required to furnish requisite informations and documents but he failed to comply. The very argument that certain stampers were received from some of the parties for doing their job work without job orders being placed in writing or Censor Certificates being made available leaves scope for a lot of explanation by the petitioner to account for bulk of stampers recovered from the premises of his company. The names and addresses of parties concerned, who according to the petitioner, had provided the stampers to get their job work done without actually placing any order in writing in this regard and making the Censor certificates available to him must be disclosed to facilitate necessary verification of the petitioner's claim in regard to job work, by the investigating agency. The investigating agency is still in the process of verifying the correctness of the informations whichever have been supplied by the petitioner with a view to find the extent of his complicity, if any, in the commission of crime. Until complete information in connection with claim of doing job work only as required by the investigating agency is furnished by the petitioner and verified to be correct, the recovery of infringing material would remain unaccounted, which, in turn, would lend assurance to the prosecution version to a great extent that the petitioner was engaged in manufacture and distribution of the infringing material and the claim of job work is only a cover up device with a view to escape the penal consequences. For the present, since the petitioner is shown to have failed to supply complete information and/or documents, as demanded, a prima facie case of piracy in regard to cinematograph films and musical works is made out against him. ( 8 ) THE courts cannot remain oblivious to fast spreading tentacles of piracy. Piracy in relation to cinematograph films tends to strike a crippling blow on entire film industry which, in turn, seriously jeopardies the national economy. Growing tendency of unscrupulous elements, having scant respect for legal regimen on the subject, necessitated a re-look on penal provisions aimed at fighting the menace of piracy way back in the year 1984. Piracy in relation to cinematograph films tends to strike a crippling blow on entire film industry which, in turn, seriously jeopardies the national economy. Growing tendency of unscrupulous elements, having scant respect for legal regimen on the subject, necessitated a re-look on penal provisions aimed at fighting the menace of piracy way back in the year 1984. Grave concern of parliament in enacting provisions for enhanced punishment for piracy finds its expression in the Statement of Objections and Reasons to Amendment Act 65 of 1984 which reads thus : "piracy has become a global problem due to the rapid advances in technology. It has assumed alarming proportions all. over the world and all the countries are trying to meet the challenge by taking stringent legislative and enforcement measures. The problem of piracy and the necessity for taking sufficient anti-piracy measures were also voiced by Members of Parliament at the time of the consideration of the Bill to amend the copyright Act, 1957, last year. 2. Mainly there are three types of piracy, namely, piracy of the printed word, piracy of sound recordings and piracy of cinematograph films. The object of the pirate in all such cases is to make quick money and avoid payment of legitimate taxes and royalties. In respect of books, it is estimated that four hundred to five hundred titles are pirated every year in India and on each of the pirated titles, the loss to the Government in the form of tax evasion amounts approximately to Rs. 11,000/ -. Apart from books, recorded music and video cassettes of films and TV programmes are reproduced, distributed and sold on a massive scale in many parts of the world without any remuneration to the authors, artistes, publishers and producers concerned. The emergence of the new techniques of recordings, fixation and reproduction of audio programmes, combined with the advent of video technology have greatly helped the pirates. It is estimated that the losses to the film producers and other owners of copyright amount to several crores of rupees. The loss to government in terms of tax evasion also amounts to crores of rupees. In addition, because of the recent video boom in the country, there are reports that uncertified video films are being exhibited on a large scale. The loss to government in terms of tax evasion also amounts to crores of rupees. In addition, because of the recent video boom in the country, there are reports that uncertified video films are being exhibited on a large scale. A large number of video parlours have also sprung up all over the country and they exhibit such films recorded on video tapes by charging admission fees from their clients. In view of these circumstances, it is proposed to amend the Copyright Act, 1957, suitably to combat effectively the piracy that is prevalent in the country. . . . . . . " ( 9 ) MORE than two decades have gone by when the amendment in the penal provisions was brought about. There is a sea change in crime situation since then. As the experience would show the extent of punishment provided by the Amendment act 65 of 1984 has failed to yield desired result. The vice of piracy instead of showing any decline keeps registering a spiralling rise in crime graph. Such a trend is indicative of a crying need for a much more stringent and deterrent legislative measures. Viewed in this perspective extent of punishment provided for the offences which the petitioner is alleged to have committed cannot be the only indicator factor to find the gravity of the offences complained of. Such like acts of piracy as alleged in the case on hand, if not effectively curbed rather allowed to thrive, will pose a serious threat to very survival of the whole film industry apart from having a cascading effect on revenue thereby impacting the national interest in the ultimate. Such acts of piracy constitute a class apart and must be distinguished from acts of piracy in relation to isolated individual ownership in copyright. ( 10 ) THE investigation is on. It is yet not complete. The investigating agency is at its job to collect requisite evidence. The court must ensure an unhindered run for the investigating agency in this process. Therefore, even though the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20th January, 2007 and is complaining of ill-health on account of hypertension, taking an overall view of the whole matter, it is difficult to accede to his urge for release on bail, pending investigation. The court must ensure an unhindered run for the investigating agency in this process. Therefore, even though the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20th January, 2007 and is complaining of ill-health on account of hypertension, taking an overall view of the whole matter, it is difficult to accede to his urge for release on bail, pending investigation. No doubt the petitioner, from the jail hospital report, appears to be suffering from hypertension, he is being provided with required treatment for the same and his condition is reported to be stable. He is not shown to be having history of any heart problem or high blood pressure and treatment therefor before the date of his arrest. All the same, proper medical care and treatment shall be ensured to the petitioner by the concerned jail authorities as the situation demands. In the ultimate analysis, the petition is dismissed.