Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (5) TMI 979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. 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 quashing and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 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 ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s 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. Explanation Construction of a building or other structure which infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the copy .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates