The Supreme Court in M/s Knit Pro International v. NCT of Delhi held that the offence of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. The ruling came in vide bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna. This article by Advocate Deepika Khinder of Deepika Trade Marks Company addresses the various aspects dealt with by the Apex Court in Knit Pro International Case on cognizance of copyright infringement as a criminal offence.
Background of the Case
Knit Pro International had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking a direction to register a First Information Report (FIR) against respondent no. 2 for offences under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the application on 23 October 2018, and an FIR (No. 431 of 2018) was registered at PS Bawana.
The accused then approached the Delhi High Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. At the hearing, the accused pressed only one ground: that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is not a cognizable and non-bailable offence. A cognizable offence is one in which the police can register an FIR and arrest without prior court permission; a non-cognizable offence requires the police to first obtain the court’s permission to investigate.
The Delhi High Court, by its judgment dated 25 November 2019, accepted this argument, held the offence to be non-cognizable, and quashed both the FIR and the Magistrate’s order. Knit Pro International then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues in M/s Knit Pro International v. NCT of Delhi
The issue for the Supreme Court was narrow: is the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act cognizable or non-cognizable?
Section 63 provides that anyone who knowingly infringes, or abets the infringement of, a copyright or other right under the Act (except one specific right under Section 53A) is punishable with imprisonment of not less than six months, extendable up to three years, along with a fine of not less than fifty thousand rupees, extendable up to two lakh rupees.
Whether an offence is cognizable or non-cognizable, where a specific law is silent on the point, is decided under Part II of the First Schedule of the CrPC. Under this schedule, an offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more (but not more than seven years) is cognizable. An offence is non-cognizable only if it is punishable with imprisonment of less than three years, or with fine only.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Knit Pro International): Counsel R. K. Tarun argued that since Section 63 permits a sentence extending up to three years, the Magistrate could impose a full three-year term. This meant the offence fell squarely within Part II of the First Schedule’s cognizable category, which covers offences punishable with three years’ imprisonment “and onwards.” Counsel also relied on Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar (AIR 2001 SC 830), which held that the maximum prescribed term of imprisonment cannot be excluded when classifying an offence.
Respondent (the accused): Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave relied on Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67, in which the Supreme Court had interpreted the phrase “not less than 10 years” to mean the sentence should be read as 10 years. Applying similar reasoning, the respondent argued the High Court was correct to treat the offence as non-cognizable. In the alternative, the respondent asked that if the Court found the offence cognizable, the matter be sent back to the High Court to decide the writ petition on other grounds that had not yet been argued.
M/s Knit Pro International v. NCT of Delhi: Supreme Court Decision
The Apex Court agreed with the appellant. It held that since Section 63 permits a maximum sentence of three years, a Magistrate may impose imprisonment up to that full term. This places the offence within the cognizable category under Part II of the First Schedule of the CrPC, which covers offences punishable with imprisonment of three years and upwards (but not more than seven years). The Court clarified that an offence is non-cognizable only when it is punishable with imprisonment of less than three years, or fine alone, which is not the case under Section 63.
The Supreme Court held that the precedent in Rakesh Kumar Paul did not apply to the facts of this case, since that decision concerned a different statutory phrase and context. On this basis, the Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, and that the Delhi High Court had committed a “grave error” in holding otherwise.
Final Order
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 25 November 2019. It directed that the criminal proceedings against respondent no. 2 for offences under Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act shall proceed further in accordance with law, on their own merits, treating the offence as cognizable and non-bailable. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Also Explore
