The Inspector of police, Video Piracy Cell, Coimbatore vs Mohammed — 200141/2013
Case under Copyright Act, 1957 Section 63, 52(A),68(A). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 25th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCB120001522013
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200141/2013
Filing Date
26-03-2013
Registration No
200141/2013
Registration Date
26-03-2013
Court
Judicial Magistrate Courts, Pollachi
Judge
2-Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Pollachi
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
255
Police Station
Video Piracy Cell
Year
2012
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The Inspector of police, Video Piracy Cell, Coimbatore
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Mohammed
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Pollachi
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 18-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Pollachi acquitted Mohammed Ali of charges under the Copyright Act and IPC Section 292 (obscene material). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions between the complainant's statement and witness testimony regarding when the complaint was filed, absence of independent witnesses, failure to verify the seized DVDs' contents, and lack of credible evidence that the accused was actually selling the pirated materials. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Pollachi acquitted Mohammed Ali of charges under the Copyright Act and IPC Section 292 (obscene material). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions between the complainant's statement and witness testimony regarding when the complaint was filed, absence of independent witnesses, failure to verify the seized DVDs' contents, and lack of credible evidence that the accused was actually selling the pirated materials. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts