The Supreme Court held that the offence of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the ‘Act’) is cognizable and non-bailable. The Court observed that if the offence has a maximum punishment of 3 years, even then it will fall under Part II of the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.).
Case Name: M/s Knit Pro International v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022
The Supreme Court held that the offence of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the ‘Act’) is cognizable and non-bailable. The Court observed that if the offence has a maximum punishment of 3 years, even then it will fall under Part II of the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.).
The instant appeal began with the appellant filing an application under 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. seeking directions from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) for the registration of FIR against respondent No.2, for the offences under Sections 51, 63 & 64 of the Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The CMM allowed the application and directed the concerned SHO to register the FIR under the appropriate provisions. Respondent No. 2 approached the High Court for quashing the said FIR on the basis that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is not a cognizable and a nonbailable offence. The HC quashed the FIR holding relying on the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67. Hence, the main issue in the present appeal is whether the offence under Section 63 is cognisable and non-bailable.
-
It should be noted that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act the punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with a fine. Further, Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. states that if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with a fine only is non cognizable and bailable, and If it is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and upwards but not more than 7 years, the offence is cognizable and non-bailable
-
The appellant argued that the HC erred in law by incorrectly interpreting the decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, and further relied on Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar, (AIR 2001 SC 830) to argue that the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for an offence should be considered while classifying an offence.
-
The respondents while opposing the arguments of the appellant, asked for an alternative relief that is if the Court holds that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is cognizable, the matter may be remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petition on merits on other grounds, as no other grounds were pressed into service.
The court noted that Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam does not apply to the facts of this case because the law is clear on this point. The language of the provision in Part II of the First Schedule is very clear and there is no ambiguity.
The court observed that:
“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 cognizable. 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.”
Therefore, the HC errored in holding that the offence under Section 63 is cognizable and non-bailable. The court set aside the HC order and held that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and nonbailable offence. Further, the court held that the criminal proceedings against the respondent for the offence under Sections 63 & 64 of the Act shall be proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits treating the same as a cognizable and nonbailable offence.
