Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court recently set aside a judgment of the Delhi High Court and held that the offence under Section 63 (offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by the Act) of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non­-bailable offence.

A bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna noted that the High Court had committed a grave error in holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non­cognizable offence. "The High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings and the FIR," noted the Top Court. 

The judgment was passed in a plea filed by M/s Knit Pro International challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court wherein an FIR had been quashed that was filed against the respondent for the offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The High Court had quashed the FIR stating that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non­cognizable offence.

Advocate RK Tarun appearing for the appellant before the Apex Court submitted that while holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non­cognizable offense, the High Court had not properly appreciated the decision of the Top Court in the case of  Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. the State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 and had misinterpreted the said judgment.

He argued that for the offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the punishment shall be imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, therefore, the punishment of three years can be imposed for the said offence, whereas, Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable. 

"Only in a case where the offence punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only offence shall be non-cognizable," Tarun contended.

However, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the accused, relying on the judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul submitted that in the aforesaid decision the expression “not less than 10 years” had been interpreted by the Top Court and it was held that the said expression would mean punishment should be 10 years, therefore, Section 167(2) (a)(i) would apply.

"The High Court has not committed any error in holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-­cognizable offence," Dave submitted.

The bench relied upon Part II of the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code i.e. "Classification of offences against other laws" and noted 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.

"Therefore, the maximum punishment which can be imposed would be three years. Therefore, the learned Magistrate may sentence the accused for a period of three years also," the bench noted.

Accordingly, the bench opined, "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."

In furtherance of this, the bench directed that 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.

Cause Title: M/s Knit Pro International Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.