• About
  • Contcat Us
Wednesday, October 4, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home News

Supreme Court Rules Copyright infringement is a cognizable, non-bailable offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
May 23, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 4 mins read
0
0
Supreme Court Rules Copyright infringement is a cognizable, non-bailable offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act

Supreme Court Rules Copyright infringement is a cognizable, non-bailable offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act

0
SHARES
12
VIEWS

The supreme court in the case of M/s Knit Pro International vs State of NCT of Delhi set aside a Delhi High Court decision declaring Section 63 of the Act to be a non-cognizable and bailable offence.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that infringement of copyright under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.

The Division Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and B V Nagarathna set aside a Delhi High Court decision from November 25, 2019 that declared Section 63 a non-cognizable and bailable offence.

READ ALSO

Chhota Rajan Files suit in Bombay HC Against Netflix Series Scoop Demands ₹1 as Damages for Violation of Personality Rights

Kerala High Court Upholds Right of Accused to Surrender, Rejects Refusal of Permission by Courts with Appropriate Jurisdiction

“It is observed and 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,” .

The Court Held

To set the stage, the appellant-company had asked a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to file a first information report (FIR) under Sections 63 and 64 of the Intellectual Act against one Anurag Sanghi, a resident of Pitampura, for alleged violation of the firm’s copyright work.

After reviewing the evidence, the Magistrate directed the police to file a FIR against the defendants.

The FIR was challenged in court, and on November 25, 2019, the Delhi High Court quashed it on the grounds that Section 63 is a non-cognizable and bailable offence because it does not carry a sentence of more than three years.

RK Tarun, the company’s lawyer, argued before the Supreme Court that the Delhi High Court erred in ruling that Section 63 isn’t a cognizable offence and that it doesn’t belong under Part II of the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

He further said that the High Court misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s judgement in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Paul versus State of Assam by not adequately appreciating it.

Tarun further contended that in order for a case to be cognizable, the punishment should be three years or more in prison and a fine, as is the case with Section 63, and that the same should be understood as a cognizable and non-bailable offence.

However, senior counsel Siddhartha Dave, who represents the accused, defended the High Court’s ruling, claiming that it correctly understood the law as put down by the Supreme Court in the Rakesh Kumar case.

After examining the opposing arguments, the court resorted to Section 63 of the CrPC, as well as Part II of the First Schedule, which distinguishes cognizable and non-cognizable offences depending on the penalty.

It went on to say that an offence is only non-cognizable if it is penalised by less than three years in prison.

“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 Magistrate may sentence the accused for a period of three years also. 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 language of the provision in Part II of the First Schedule is very plain, according to the bench, and there is no ambiguity.

As a result, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in determining that the violation of Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non­cognizable violation.

“Thereby the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings and the FIR. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings/FIR under Section 63 of the Copyright Act deserves to be quashed and set aside,”.

The Supreme Court reached a verdict.

As a result, the case was remanded to the High Court with instructions to reconsider it.

Read Judgment

Ms_Knit_Pro_International_vs_State_of_NCT_of_DelhiDownload
Tags: cognizablecopy rightnon-bailablesection 63supreme court
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

Chhota Rajan Files Lawsuit in Bombay High Court Against Netflix Series 'Scoop,' Demands ₹1 as Damages for Violation of Personality Rights
News

Chhota Rajan Files suit in Bombay HC Against Netflix Series Scoop Demands ₹1 as Damages for Violation of Personality Rights

June 1, 2023
Kerala High Court Upholds Right of Accused to Surrender, Rejects Refusal of Permission by Courts with Appropriate Jurisdiction
News

Kerala High Court Upholds Right of Accused to Surrender, Rejects Refusal of Permission by Courts with Appropriate Jurisdiction

June 1, 2023
The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.
News

The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.

April 24, 2023
calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

February 24, 2023
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

February 24, 2023
pocso act
News

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

February 23, 2023
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

June 6, 2022
Right to Promotion is a Fundamental Right Not the Right to Promotion

Right to Consider to Promotion is a Fundamental Right But Not the Right to Promotion

May 13, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court Central Bureau of Investigation central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate gauhati high court Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements law ministry legal news madras high court murder patna high court pil pocso act Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry varanasi court

important sections in contact while drafting contact

by By Justuce Bench
June 3, 2023
0
Analysis of Contract Law, Social Norms, and Inter-Firm Cooperation
Articles

In contract law, there are several important sections that govern the rights, obligations, and enforcement of contracts. While the specific...

Read more

Eight types of contract laws

by By Justuce Bench
June 3, 2023
0
Eight types of contract laws
Articles

Contract law is the legal field responsible for governing and enforcing binding agreements. Contracts play a vital role in holding...

Read more

Analysis of Contract Law, Social Norms, and Inter-Firm Cooperation

by By Justuce Bench
June 2, 2023
0
Analysis of Contract Law, Social Norms, and Inter-Firm Cooperation
Articles

We frequently engage in numerous agreements in our daily lives, ranging from buying vegetables at the market to installing and...

Read more

An overview of the process of rescinding contracts

by By Justuce Bench
June 2, 2023
0
rescission of contact
Articles

The term "rescission" originates from the Latin word 'rescindere', meaning to cut or tear open. It refers to the act...

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • important sections in contact while drafting contact

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Analysis of Contract Law, Social Norms, and Inter-Firm Cooperation

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Telangana High Court has ruled that notice under section 41A is required for offences punishable by up to seven years 

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In