Author: Intern - Soundarya Rathor
In the matter of ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., [W.P. No. 32942 of 2017 (GM-RES)], a Single Judge [Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J] of the High Court of Karnataka vide order dated December 20, 2021, declared that knowingly infringing or abetting copyright infringement is a cognizable offence.
Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Act”) provides that, “Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the copyright in a work…shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years…”. Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) provides that offences, if punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only, are non-cognizable. The question that arises is whether the quantum of punishment viz. “not be less than six months but which may extend to three years” in section 63 of the Act makes the offence of copyright infringement cognizable or non-cognizable?
A complaint was registered against the Petitioner for infringing the second Respondent’s copyright, and an investigation was ordered by the Additional Commissioner of Police under Sections 63 and 64 of the Act. The Petitioner argued that punishment under Section 63 is less than 3 years of imprisonment. This makes the offence non-cognizable as per Schedule II of the CrPC and the police does not have any power to launch an investigation into the matter. The Respondents argued that Section 63 is indeed cognizable, and there is no fault in the investigation directed.
The Court, while referring to Schedule II of the CrPC, held that the offence of copyright infringement would fall under the category of a cognizable and non-bailable offence. It was held that “…what is to be seen is the maximum punishment. In a given case, the competent criminal Court can sentence an offender under Section 63 of the Act to three years imprisonment. Exact three years is a possibility in a given circumstance. Therefore, it would fall under Item No. 2 of Schedule II of the Cr.P.C.” On the point of comparison with Section 64 of the Act, it was held that, “Merely because a separate provision under Section 64 of the Act which depicts power of search and seizure by the Police is also found in the statute, it does not take away cognizability of the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act.”
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