Skip to main content

Infringement of copyright or other rights under the Copyright Act is a cognizable, non-bailable offence

Citation : M/s Knit Pro International Versus The State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 807 Of 2022; 

Date of Judgment/Order : May 20, 2022

Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India

Corum : M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna, Jj.

Background

The Appellant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and sought directions from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the registration of FIR against the respondent No.2 herein for the offences under Sections 51, 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act read with Section 420 of the IPC. The said application was allowed and an FIR was registered against the Respondent. The Respondent in turn prayed before the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings on the sole ground that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is not a cognizable and a non-bailable offence which was allowed. This appeal is against the order of the High Court.

Judgment

The Supreme Court observed that the short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is, 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 as observed and held by the High Court.

Section 53 of the Copyright which deals with offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by the Copyright Act states that offences shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees.

Whereas Part II of the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with Classification Of Offences Against Other Laws states that, offence if punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and upwards but not more than 7 years, the same would be cognizable, non-bailable and triable by Magistrate of the first class.

Thus, 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 SC held that under the circumstances the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the FIR and holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence.

Note:

The Appellant's advocate had made an excellent point by directing the court's attention to the judgment in Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830, where it  has been specifically observed and held by this Court that the maximum term of imprisonment that is prescribed for the said offence, cannot be excluded for the purpose of classification of the offence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more