Reporting By: Amit Kashyap.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna in M/s Knit Pro International Versus The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 807 of 2022 held that the offence of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non bailable offence.
If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence, the bench observed.
According to a news of legal web portal Live Law the appellant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and sought dSingh,ions from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the registration of FIR against the the respondent- accused for the offences under Sections 51, 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act read with Section 420 of the IPC. Allowing the said application, the CMM directed the concerned SHO to register the FIR under the appropriate provision of law. FIR was registered pursuant to this order. Thereafter the accused filed a writ petition the Delhi High Court with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings mainly on the ground that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is not a cognizable and a non-bailable offence. The High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed an FIR registered against the writ petitioners for the offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Contentions Before the Apex Court in appeal, the appellant contended that the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence and it does not fall within Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. The respondent contended that that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence.
The issue was therefore whether, the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offence as considered by the Trial Court or a non cognizable offence?
The bench referred to Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. The court noted that for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine.
As per the part II, an offence, if punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only is non cognizable and bailable. If punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and upwards but not more than 7 years, the offence is cognizable and non-bailable.
The court noted that the maximum punishment which can be imposed under Section 63 would be three years and therefore, the Magistrate may sentence the accused for a period of three years also.
“In that view of the matter considering Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C., if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be noncognizable. The language of the provision in Part II of First Schedule is very clear and there is no ambiguity whatsoever.”
Therefore Hon’ble Bench held that offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and nonbailable offence and order passed by the High Court taking a contrary view was quashed and set aside and the criminal proceedings against respondent no.2 for the offence under Sections 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act now shall be proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits treating the same as a cognizable and nonbailable offence.
Advocate For Appellant(s):
Mr. R.K. Tarun, Capt. S. Rani, Mr. Rohit Shukla, Ms. Pinky, Mr. Abhay Sholanki, Mr. Yadav Narender Singh.
Advocate For Respondent(s):
Mr. Ajay Marwah, Mr. Tapan M., Mr. Agush Gupta, Mr. Aditya Srinivasan, Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Mr. Anukalp Jain, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker.
***********
Judgements In Criminal Law 