LexM/S KNIT PRO INTERNATIONAL versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. [2022] 3 S.C.R. 290 290 M/S KNIT PRO INTERNATIONAL v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022) MAY 20, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Copyright Act, 1957 – s.63 – Whether, the offence under s.63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence – Held: For offence u/s.63 of the Copyright Act, the maximum punishment which can be imposed would be three years – In that view of the matter considering Part II of the First Schedule of the CrPC, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence – High Court committed grave error in holding that the offence u/s.63 of the Copyright Act is a non- cognizable offence – Offence u/s.63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence – CrPC – First Schedule, Part II. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. For the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, 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 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 non- cognizable. The language of the provision in Part II of First A B C D E F G H 291 Schedule is very clear and there is no ambiguity whatsoever. [Para 5.3][295-D-F] 2. 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. The 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. [Paras 6, 7][295-G-H; 296-A-B] Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67 : [2017] 8 SCR 785 – held inapplicable. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830 : [2001] 1 SCR 821 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2017] 8 SCR 785 held inapplicable Para 3.1 [2001] 1 SCR 821 referred to Para 3.2 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2019 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3422 of 2018. R. K. Tarun, Rohit Shukla, Abhay Solanki, Ms. S. Rani, Ms. Pinky, Yadav Narender Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ajay Marwah, Adity Srinivasan, Rajan Bajaj, Rishabh Kanojiya, Karan Thakur, Tapan Masta, Ayush Gupta, Mohammad Akhil, Adit Khorana, Ranjan M/S. KNIT PRO INTERNATIONAL v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. A B C D E F G H 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. Kumar Chourasia, Sughosh Subramanyam, Anukalp Jain, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.3422 of 2018 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed the FIR bearing No.431 of 2018 filed against the respondents for the offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Copyright Act’), the original complainant has preferred to the present appeal. 2. That the appellant herein 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 herein 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 applic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.