IMPORTANT POINT
Offence under Section 63 of Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 3422 of 2018 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed the FIR bearing No. 431 of 2018 filed against the respondents for the offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Copyright Act’) the original complainant has preferred to the present appeal.

2. That the appellant herein filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and sought directions from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the registration of FIR against the respondent No. 2 herein for the offences under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act read with Section 420 of the IPC. By order dated 23.10.2018, the learned CMM allowed the said application and directed the concerned SHO to register the FIR under the appropriate provision of law. That pursuant to the said order, FIR bearing No. 431 of 2018 came to be registered with PS Bawana. That thereafter respondent no. 2 herein-original accused filed 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 non-bailable 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 non-cognizable offence.

3. Mr. R.K. Tarun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence and it does not fall within Part-II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C.

3.1 It is submitted that while holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence, the High Court has not properly appreciated the decision of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 and has misinterpreted the said judgment.

3.2 It is submitted that in the case of Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830, it is specifically observed and held by this Court that the maximum term of imprisonment that is prescribed for the said offence, cannot be excluded for the purpose of classification of the offence.

3.3 It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that for the offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the punishment shall be imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years. It is submitted that therefore the punishment of three years can be imposed for the said offence. It is submitted therefore that Part-II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable. It is submitted that only in a case where the offence punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only offence shall be non-cognizable. It is 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 non-cognizable offence.

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocate appeari