Shivani Thakur
Published on: May 22, 2022 at 17:38 IST
The Bench of Justices M R Shah & B V Nagarathna held that “The offence of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a Cognizable and Non Bailable offence.”
The Bench observed, “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 this case, the Appellant filed FIR against the Respondent for the offences under Sections 51, 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act read with Section 420 of the IPC.
The High Court allowed a Writ Petition and quashed a FIR registered against the Writ Petitioner for the offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Before the Apex Court in appeal, the Appellant contended that, the High Court has committed a grave error in observing, that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a Non Cognizable Offence.
The Court noted that “The maximum punishment which can be imposed under Section 63 would be three years’’.
“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 .”
“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.”
While allowing the Appeal, the Bench observed, “It is observed and held that offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and nonbailable offence. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court taking a contrary view is hereby 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 Non Bailable offence.”