Summary
On a complainant's application under Section 156(3) CrPC, a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi directed registration of an FIR for infringement of copyright under Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and the Magistrate's order on the sole ground, pressed at the hearing, that the offence under Section 63 is non-cognizable. The Supreme Court allowed the complainant's appeal. Section 63 prescribes imprisonment of not less than six months which may extend to three years, so a sentence of three years can be imposed; under Part II of the First Schedule to the CrPC an offence against other laws punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards but not more than seven years is cognizable and non-bailable, and only an offence punishable with less than three years or fine alone is non-cognizable.
Issues
- Whether the offence of infringement of copyright under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, punishable with imprisonment of not less than six months extending to three years, is a cognizable and non-bailable offence under Part II of the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Provisions considered
- Sections 63 and 64, Copyright Act, 1957Since the maximum punishment under Section 63 is three years' imprisonment, the offence falls in the category 'punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards but not more than seven years' and is cognizable and non-bailable; the FIR and proceedings under Sections 63 and 64 were restored. (¶¶ 5.2, 5.3, 7)
- Part II of the First Schedule (classification of offences against other laws); Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An offence against another law is non-cognizable only if punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only; the Magistrate's direction to register the FIR was therefore proper and the High Court erred in quashing it. (¶¶ 2, 5.3, 6)
Held
- The language of Part II of the First Schedule is clear and unambiguous: an offence for which the Magistrate may sentence the accused to three years' imprisonment is cognizable. The decision in Rakesh Kumar Paul, interpreting the expression 'not less than ten years' in Section 167(2)(a)(i) CrPC, does not apply, and the High Court committed a grave error in holding the offence under Section 63 to be non-cognizable and quashing the FIR. (¶¶ 5.3, 6)
- The offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is cognizable and non-bailable; the criminal proceedings against the accused for offences under Sections 63 and 64 shall proceed in accordance with law on their own merits on that footing. (¶ 7)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Delhi High Court's judgment of 25.11.2019 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3422 of 2018 quashing FIR No. 431 of 2018 set aside; the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act held cognizable and non-bailable and the criminal proceedings to continue on merits. No order as to costs.