LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is a cognizable or non-cognizable offense.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: M/s Knit Pro International vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Judgment Date: 20 May 2022
Date of the Judgment: 20 May 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 507
Judges: M. R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can police register a First Information Report (FIR) and investigate a copyright infringement case on their own, or do they need a warrant from a court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the interpretation of Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. This judgment clarifies whether offenses under this section are ‘cognizable’ (where police can arrest without a warrant) or ‘non-cognizable’ (where a warrant is required). The two-judge bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna delivered this judgment.
Case Background
M/s Knit Pro International (the appellant) filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement against the respondents. The appellant sought registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 51, 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) directed the police to register an FIR. Consequently, FIR No. 431 of 2018 was registered at PS Bawana. The accused then filed a petition before the High Court of Delhi to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court quashed the FIR, stating that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is non-cognizable.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Not Specified | M/s Knit Pro International filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement. |
| Not Specified | Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant seeking directions for registration of FIR |
| 23.10.2018 | The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) directed the police to register an FIR. |
| Not Specified | FIR No. 431 of 2018 was registered at PS Bawana. |
| Not Specified | The accused filed a petition before the High Court of Delhi to quash the criminal proceedings. |
| 25.11.2019 | The High Court quashed the FIR, stating that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is non-cognizable. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), seeking directions for the registration of an FIR against the respondent for offenses under Sections 51, 63, and 64 of the Copyright Act, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The CMM allowed this application on 23.10.2018, directing the concerned SHO to register the FIR. Subsequently, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is non-cognizable.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and its classification under the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, states:
“63. Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act.—Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of— (a) the copyright in a work, or (b) any other right conferred by this Act, except the right conferred by section 53A 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: Provided that where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.”
The First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. classifies offenses into cognizable and non-cognizable categories. Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. states:
| Offence | Cognizable or non-cognizable | Bailable or non-bailable | By what court triable |
|---|---|---|---|
| If punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years | Cognizable | Non-bailable | Court of Session |
| If punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and upwards but not more than 7 years. | Cognizable | Non-bailable | Magistrate of the first class |
| If punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only. | Non-cognizable | Bailable | Any Magistrate |
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the High Court erred in holding that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is non-cognizable.
- It was submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 and misinterpreted the judgment.
- The appellant contended that the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for an offense cannot be excluded for the purpose of classifying the offense, relying on Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830.
- The appellant argued that since the punishment under Section 63 of the Copyright Act can extend to three years, Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. applies, making the offense cognizable.
- It was submitted that only offenses punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only are non-cognizable.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent argued that the High Court was correct in holding that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is non-cognizable.
- The respondent heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), arguing that the expression “not less than” should be interpreted to mean that the punishment should be exactly the specified term.
- In the alternative, the respondent requested that if the Supreme Court finds the offense to be cognizable, the matter should be remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petition on other grounds.
[TABLE] of Submissions
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Cognizability of Offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act | Offence is cognizable as punishment can extend to 3 years. | Appellant |
| High Court failed to appreciate the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 and misinterpreted the judgment. | Appellant | |
| Maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for an offense cannot be excluded for the purpose of classifying the offense, relying on Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830. | Appellant | |
| Offence under Section 63 is non-cognizable | High Court was correct in holding that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is non-cognizable. | Respondent |
| Relied on Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), arguing that the expression “not less than” should be interpreted to mean that the punishment should be exactly the specified term. | Respondent | |
| Alternative Prayer | If the Supreme Court finds the offense to be cognizable, the matter should be remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petition on other grounds. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offense, as considered by the Trial Court, or a non-cognizable offense, as observed and held by the High Court.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offense or a non-cognizable offense. | The Supreme Court held that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offense. The Court reasoned that the maximum punishment for the offense can extend to three years, thus falling under the category of cognizable offenses as per Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
On the interpretation of “maximum punishment”:
-
Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830 – Supreme Court of India
The Court observed that the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for an offense cannot be excluded for the purpose of classifying the offense.
On the interpretation of “not less than”:
-
Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 – Supreme Court of India
The respondent relied on this case, where the expression “not less than 10 years” was interpreted to mean a punishment of 10 years. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Legal Provisions:
-
Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957
The Court analyzed the provision to determine the punishment for copyright infringement. -
Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C.
The Court referred to this schedule to determine whether an offense is cognizable or non-cognizable based on the punishment prescribed.
[TABLE] of Authorities
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – The Court relied on this case to determine that the maximum term of imprisonment should be considered for classification. |
| Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished – The Court held that the interpretation of “not less than” in this case was not applicable to the present case. |
| Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 | Statute | Analyzed to determine the punishment for copyright infringement. |
| Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. | Statute | Referred to for classifying offenses as cognizable or non-cognizable based on punishment. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| The High Court erred in holding that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is non-cognizable. | Appellant | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect in its interpretation. |
| The maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for an offense cannot be excluded for the purpose of classifying the offense. | Appellant | Accepted. The Supreme Court relied on Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830. |
| The offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offense. | Respondent | Rejected. The Supreme Court held that the offense is cognizable. |
| Relied on Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), arguing that the expression “not less than” should be interpreted to mean that the punishment should be exactly the specified term. | Respondent | Rejected. The Supreme Court distinguished the case and held that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case. |
| If the Supreme Court finds the offense to be cognizable, the matter should be remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petition on other grounds. | Respondent | Partially Accepted. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the criminal proceedings to continue. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830*: The Supreme Court followed this authority, stating that the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for an offense cannot be excluded for the purpose of classification.
- Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67*: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, holding that it was not applicable to the present case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear language of Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is three years. Therefore, as per the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C., any offense punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards, but not more than seven years, is a cognizable offense. The Court also relied on the principle that the maximum punishment should be considered for classification purposes.
[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Sentiment Percentage |
|---|---|
| Maximum punishment under Section 63 can extend to three years. | 40% |
| Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. classifies offenses with imprisonment of three years and upwards as cognizable. | 40% |
| Reliance on the principle that the maximum punishment should be considered for classification purposes. | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal interpretation rather than factual considerations. The primary focus was on the correct application of the law to the facts of the case, rather than the specific factual details of the copyright infringement itself.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a grave error in holding that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offense. The Court noted that the maximum punishment for the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act can extend to three years. According to Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C., if an offense is punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards, but not more than seven years, it is a cognizable offense. The Court stated that only offenses punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with a fine only are considered non-cognizable.
The Court observed:
“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. 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.”
The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), relied upon by the respondent, was not applicable to the facts of the case. The Court emphasized that the language of Part II of the First Schedule is clear and unambiguous.
The Court further noted:
“The language of the provision in Part II of First Schedule is very clear and there is no ambiguity whatsoever.”
The Court concluded:
“In view of the above discussion and for the reason stated above, it is observed and held that offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.”
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed that the criminal proceedings against the respondent for the offense under Sections 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act should proceed further in accordance with law, treating the offense as cognizable and non-bailable.
Key Takeaways
- The offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is a cognizable and non-bailable offense.
- Police can now register an FIR and investigate cases of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act without needing a warrant from a court.
- The maximum punishment prescribed for an offense is the determining factor in classifying the offense as cognizable or non-cognizable under the Cr.P.C.
- This judgment clarifies the legal position and provides guidance for future cases involving copyright infringement.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the criminal proceedings against the respondent for the offense under Sections 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act should proceed further in accordance with law, treating the offense as cognizable and non-bailable.
Specific Amendments Analysis
Not Applicable.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is a cognizable and non-bailable offense because the maximum punishment for the offense can extend to three years. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. and establishes that the maximum punishment prescribed for an offense is the determining factor in classifying the offense as cognizable or non-cognizable. This decision overrules the High Court’s view that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is non-cognizable.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Knit Pro International vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. clarifies that the offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is a cognizable and non-bailable offense. This decision is based on the interpretation of the punishment prescribed under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and the classification of offenses under Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. The judgment ensures that police can take immediate action in cases of copyright infringement under Section 63, without requiring a warrant from the court.