SURESHKUMAR Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act a cognizable one Are the police justified in these two cases in reckoning the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act as a cognizable offence and proceeding further These are the questions that are raised in these two writ petitions.

(2.) The penal provision appears in Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term, "which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to three years and with fine". The Copyright Act as amended does not anywhere specifically refer to cognizability for the purpose of investigation. We therefore have got to fall back on the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that if the offence under other laws is punishable "with imprisonment for three years and upwards, but not more than 7 years", the offence will be cognizable and non-bailable. If on the contrary, the offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only, the offence will be non-cognizable and bailable and can be tried by any Magistrate. The short question is whether the offence under Section 63 will fall in the former category or the latter.

(3.) A plain reading of the stipulations in the Schedule shows that if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and upwards, but not more than 7 years, it must be reckoned as cognizable. Section 63, according to me, is clearly punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and in these circumstances the offence has to be held to be cognizable. No binding precedent is brought to my notice. But it is stated that in Jithendra Prasad Singh v. State of Assam, 2003 26 PTC 486 and in Dr. A.K. Mukherjee v. State and Anr., 1994 2 ArbLR 77 (Delhi) the High Courts have taken the same view. These decisions are not placed before me.