/2022 INSC 0404/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 807 of 2022 
M/s Knit Pro International     ...Appellant 
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.                       ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
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.
1

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 application  and  directed the  concerned SHO
to   register   the   FIR   under   the   appropriate   provision   of   law.
That   pursuant  to  the   said  order,  FIR  bearing  No.431 of  2018
came   to   be   registered   with   PS   Bawana.     That   thereafter
respondent   no.2   herein   –   original   accused   filed   the   present
petition   before   the   High   Court   with   a   prayer   to   quash   the
criminal   proceedings   on   various   grounds.     However,   at   the
time   of   hearing,   the   original   writ   petitioner   –   accused   prayed
to quash the criminal proceedings on the sole ground that the
offence   under   Section   63   of   the   Copyright   Act   is   not   a
cognizable and a non­bailable offence.
2.1 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
allowed   the   said   writ   petition   and   has   quashed   the   criminal
proceedings and the order passed by the learned CMM passed
2

in   Criminal   Application   under   Section   156(3)   Cr.P.C.   by
holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act
is a non­cognizable offence.
3. Mr.   R.K.   Tarun,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   appellant   has   vehemently   submitted   that   the   High   Court
has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the
offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a
non­cognizable offence and it does not fall within Part II of the
First Schedule of the Cr.P.C.
3.1 It is submitted that while holding that the offence under
Section   63   of   the   Copyright   Act   is   a   non­cognizable   offence,
the   High   Court   has   not   properly   appreciated   the   decision   of
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Rakesh   Kumar   Paul   vs.   State   of
Assam,   (2017)   15   SCC   67   and   has   misinterpreted   the   said
judgment.   
3.2 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   case   of   Intelligence   Officer,
Narcotics   Control   Bureau   vs.   Sambhu   Sonkar,   AIR   2001
SC 830,  it is specifically observed and held by this Court that
the maximum term of imprisonment that is prescribed for the
3

said   offence,   cannot   be   excluded   for   the   purpose   of
classification of the offence.
3.3 It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
for   the   offences   under   Section   63   of   the   Copyright   Act,   the
punishment shall be imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than six months but which may extend to three years.
It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   punishment   of   three   years
can be imposed for the said offence.   It is submitted therefore
that   Part   II   of   the   First   Schedule   of   the   Cr.P.C.   would   be
applicable.   It   is   submitted   that   only   in   a   case   where   the
offence   punishable   with   imprisonment   for   less   than   three
years   or   with   fine   only   offence   shall   be   non­cognizable.     It   is
submitted   that   as   per   Part   II   of   the   First   Schedule   of   the
Cr.P.C,.   if   the   offence   is   punishable   with   imprisonment   for
three years and upwards but not less than 7 years, the offence
would  be  cognizable.     It  is  submitted  that   in   that   view  of   the
matter   the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in
quashing the FIR while holding that the offence under Section
63 of the Copyright Act is a non­cognizable offence. 
4

4. Present   appeal   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri
Siddhartha   Dave,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on
behalf of respondent no.2.
4.1 Shri   Dave,   learned   Senior   Counsel   has   heavily   relied
upon the decision of this Court in the case of   Rakesh Kumar
Paul (supra).   It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision the
expression   “not   less   than   10   years”   has   been   interpreted   by
this Court and it is held that the said expression would mean
punishment should be 10 years and therefore, Section 167(2)
(a)(i)   would   apply.     It   is   submitted   that   in   that   view   of   the
matter the High Court has not committed any error in holding
that   the   offence   under   Section   63   of   the   Copyright   Act   is   a
non­cognizable offence.
4.2 In   the   alternative,   it   is   prayed   by   Shri   Dave   learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 that if
this   Court   holds   that   the   offence   under   Section   63   of   the
Copyright Act is a cognizable offence, in that case, the matter
may be remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petition
on merits on other grounds, as no other grounds were pressed
into service.
5

5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
5.1 The   short   question   which   is   posed   for   consideration
before this Court is, 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.
5.2 While answering the aforesaid question Section 63 of the
Copyright Act and  Part II of the  First  Schedule of the Cr.P.C.
are required to be referred to and the same are as under:
" 63.   Offence   of   infringement   of   copyright   or
other   rights  conferred   by   this  Act.   ­  Any   person  who
knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of­ 
 (a) the copyright in a work, or 
  (b)   any   other   right   conferred   by   this   Act,   except
the   right   conferred   by   section   53A   except   the   right
conferred   by   section   53A   shall   be   punishable   with
imprisonment   for   a   term   which   shall   not   be   less   than
six   months   but   which   may   extend   to   three   years   and
with   fine   which   shall   not   be   less   than   fifty   thousand
rupees   but   which   may   extend   to   two   lakh   rupees:
Provided   that   where   the   infringement   has   not   been
made   for   gain   in   the   course   of   trade   or   business   the
court   may,   for   adequate   and   special   reasons   to   be
mentioned   in   the   judgment,   impose   a   sentence   of
imprisonment   for   a   term   of   less   than   six   months   or   a
fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.  
6

Explanation   ­   Construction   of   a   building   or   other
structure which infringes or which, if completed, would
infringe   the   copyright   in   some   other   work   shall   not   be
an offence under this section."
II – CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER LAWS
Offence Cognizable or
non­cognizable Bailable or
non­
cognizable By what
court triable
If   punishable
with   death,
imprisonment
for   life,   or
imprisonment
for more than
7 years Cognizable Non­bailable Court of
Session
If   punishable
with
imprisonment
for   3   years
and   upwards
but   not   more
than 7 years. Cognizable Non­bailable Magistrate of
the first class
If   punishable
with
imprisonment
for   less   than
3   years   or
with   fine
only. Non­cognizable Bailable Any
Magistrate
5.3 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 maximum
7

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.  In view
of  the   above   clear   position   of   law,   the   decision   in   the   case   of
Rakesh   Kumar   Paul   (supra)   relied   upon   by   learned   counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 shall not be applicable
to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand.     The   language   of   the
provision in Part II of First Schedule is very clear and there is
no ambiguity whatsoever.
6. 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
8

quashing   and   setting   aside   the   criminal   proceedings/FIR
under Section 63 of the Copyright Act deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
7. In view of the above discussion and for the reason stated
above, it is observed and held that offence under Section 63 of
the   Copyright   Act   is   a   cognizable   and   non­bailable   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
non­bailable offence.  
Present   appeal   is   allowed   to   the   aforesaid   extent.
However,   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   there
shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
May 20, 2022.
9