Author: Intern - Yash Raj
In the matter of Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa v. State of Maharashtra [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 350], a single judge [Sarang V. Kotwal, J.] of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide an order dated February 26th 2021, held that offences under Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 103 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 are cognizable and non-bailable.
In the Part II of Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 making classification of offences against other laws, it is provided that the offences which are punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and upwards, but not more than 7 years, are cognizable and non-bailable while offences which are punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years are non-cognizable and bailable. Both Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act provide for offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.
The Applicant submitted that the schedule I of CrPC can be applied to Acts other than the Indian Penal Code, keeping in mind the object and reasons of that particular Act, and therefore looking at the scheme of Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, the offences are bailable, falling within the third category of Part II of Schedule I.
The Respondent State contended that the offences in which punishment can extend upto 3 years of imprisonment are non-bailable offences and fall within the second category of Part II of Schedule I, as this has already been held by various courts in context of other statutes.
The Court after analyzing the provisions of CrPC and few relevant decisions of various courts on the said issue observed that “Bare reading of this Part II of the Schedule I of CrPC shows that, if the offences in the other laws are punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards then the offences are cognizable and non-bailable. Wherever it is possible to impose the punishment extending to three years, this category would apply, because in such offences it is possible to impose sentence of exact three years. In such cases offences would be non-bailable.” Therefore, the Court concluded that the offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 103 of Trade Marks Act are cognizable and non-bailable in nature and hence, the anticipatory bail application, although ultimately rejected on facts, was held maintainable.
Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.
Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP