• About
  • Contcat Us
Monday, January 30, 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

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

“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

Bombay high court
News

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

January 11, 2023
The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts
News

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

January 11, 2023
Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.
News

Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.

January 11, 2023
judges appointment to Andhra Pradesh and Karanataka High court
News

Collegium proposes the appointment of two judicial officers as judges of the high courts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

January 11, 2023
The Uttarakhand High Court's order to the CBI to investigate former CM Trivendra Rawat was quashed by the Supreme Court.
News

The Uttarakhand High Court’s order to the CBI to investigate former CM Trivendra Rawat was quashed by the Supreme Court.

January 5, 2023
Madras-HC-uapa
News

Can the blind guide the blind? The Madras High Court orders the TN Judicial Academy to provide judges with UAPA and remand training.

December 30, 2022
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
jug jugg jeeyo

Copyright infringement | Jugjugg Jeeyo movie stay refused by Ranchi court

June 25, 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 government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements legal news madras high court murder Nawab Malik patna high court pil pocso act public interest litigation Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry Uttar Pradesh varanasi court

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
Bombay high court
News

Advocate Neela Gokhale was today recommended for promotion as judge of the Bombay High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium.

Read more

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts
News

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium proposed the nomination of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts.

Read more

Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.
News

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium decided to confirm the appointment of attorney Nagendra Ramachandra Naik as a Karnataka High...

Read more

Collegium proposes the appointment of two judicial officers as judges of the high courts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
judges appointment to Andhra Pradesh and Karanataka High court
News

Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended that two judicial officers be appointed as judges of the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka...

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

  • The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

    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

© 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