TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules Section 63 Copyright Act offence as cognizable, reinstates criminal case</h1> <h3>M/s Knit Pro International Versus The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.</h3> The Court held that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is cognizable, overturning the High Court's decision to quash the FIR. The appellant ... Offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act - whether the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offence as considered by the Trial Court or a noncognizable offence as observed and held by the High Court? - HELD 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. 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 noncognizable. 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 noncognizable offence. 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 and setting aside the criminal proceedings/FIR under Section 63 of the Copyright Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. The offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and nonbailable offence - appeal allowed. Issues:1. Whether the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable or noncognizable offence.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the High Court's judgment quashing the FIR under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in holding the offence under Section 63 as noncognizable, citing precedents like Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam. The appellant highlighted that the punishment for the offence could extend to three years, making it cognizable under Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. The respondent, on the other hand, relied on the interpretation of 'not less than 10 years' from a previous case to support the High Court's decision. The Court examined Section 63 of the Copyright Act and the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the offence's maximum punishment of three years aligns with the criteria for a cognizable offence. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in deeming the offence noncognizable and quashing the proceedings, thereby allowing the appeal and reinstating the criminal proceedings against the respondent as cognizable and nonbailable. No costs were awarded in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
