The Supreme Court in M/s Knit Pro International v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr[1] laid to rest the ambiguity surrounding Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Act’) by clarifying that the provision is cognizable and non-bailable.
Legal Background:
The Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C’), vide Part II of the First Schedule, classifies offences as ‘cognizable/ non-cognizable’, irrespective of the Act prescribing the term of punishment. Cr.P.C defines the term ‘cognizable offence’ as an offence for which, a police officer may arrest without warrant; whereas ‘non-cognizable offence’ is defined as an offence for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant.
Section 63 of the Act as originally enacted prescribed imprisonment which extended to one year or fine or both for the offences of copyright infringement. However, due to the increasing incidences of piracy, the Act was amended in 1984 and the imprisonment was altered to a minimum term of six months that could be extended to maximum period of three years along with the fine.
The Cr.P.C prescribes that if the offence is punishable by imprisonment for three years and upwards but not more than seven years, the offence will be cognizable. Since the maximum period of imprisonment under Section 63 is three years, there has been conflict in the viewpoints of various High Courts as to whether copyright infringement under Section 63 is a cognizable offence or not.
Factual Background:
The Apex Court was dealing with an appeal against an order of the High Court of Delhi quashing FIR against respondents for offence under Sections 63 of the Act. The appellant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and sought directions from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for registration of FIR against the respondent- accused for offences under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Act. Allowing the application, the Magistrate directed the SHO to file the FIR and the same was registered. Subsequently, the respondent-accused filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court to quash the FIR on the ground that the offence under Section 63 of the Act is not a cognizable and non-bailable offence. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR by holding that offence under Section 63 of the Act is a non-cognizable offence.
Court Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the maximum punishment which could be imposed under Section 63 is be three years and therefore, the Magistrate may sentence the accused for a period of three years. The Court went on to state that in view of Part II of the First Schedule of 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 and 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 non-cognizable.
The Court further clarified that the language of the provision of First Schedule is very clear and unambiguous, and that offence under Section 63 of the Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
While setting aside the order of the High Court, the Court directed to proceed further with criminal proceedings against respondent, under Sections 63 & 64 of the Act treating the same as a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
[1] Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022