Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment and order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed the FIR filed against the respondents for the offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Brief Facts:
The appellant 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 for the offences under Sections 51, 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act read with Section 420 of the IPC. By order dated 23.10.2018, the learned CMM allowed the said application and directed the concerned SHO to register the FIR under the appropriate provision of law. Pursuant to the said order, FIR came to be registered. Thereafter respondent no.2 filed the present petition before the High Court with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings on various grounds. However, at the time of hearing, the accused prayed 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 nonbailable offence. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed the criminal proceedings and the order passed by the learned CMM passed in Criminal Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence and it does not fall within Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C.
It was submitted that while holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence, the High Court has not properly appreciated the decision of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 and has misinterpreted the said judgment. It was submitted 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.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent has heavily relied upon the decision of SC in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra). It was submitted that in the aforesaid decision the expression “not less than 10 years” has been interpreted by this Court and it is held that the said expression would mean punishment should be 10 years and therefore, Section 167(2) (a)(i) would apply. It was submitted that in that view of the matter 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.
SC’s Observations:
The issue before the SC was 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?
SC referred Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. SC observed that 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.
SC stated that 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. 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. Under the circumstances the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable 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. Present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.”
Case Title: M/S Knit Pro International v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Bench: J. M. R. Shah and J. B.V. Nagarathna
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 807 of 2022
Decided on: 20th May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
