( 1 ) THE instant case is coming up for consideration under the caption 'for being mentioned'. When the petitioner initially applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) (for short 'the Cr. P. C. ') having regard to the accusation that the perpetrated the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copy Right act, 1957 (Act No. 14 of 1957) (for short 'the act'), this Court dismissed the anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence alleged is bailable and therefore no application for anticipatory bail could be maintained.

( 2 ) HAVING regard to the magnitude of the offence alleged to have been perpetrated by the petitionerapprehendingthat it would cause considerable damage to the prosecution, the learned Public Prosecutor sought the order to be reconsidered on the premise that the offence alleged is a non-bailable one, but not a bailable one.

( 3 ) HEARD extensively the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor. Section 63 of the act is the provision germane in the context and reads as under:

"63. Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act:-Any person knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of- (a) the copyright in a work, or (b) any other right conferred by this Act, except the right conferred by section 53-A.

shall be punishable with imprisonment fora 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 orotherstructure which infringes orwhich, if completed, would infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be an offence under this section.

( 4 ) A bare perusal of the provision shows that if any person infringes or abets the infringement of a copyright 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. IF the infringement has not been made for any gain in the course of trade or business, the court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impugned a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or sentence of fine of less than fifty thousand rupees. The punishment thus prescribed under the said provisions is a minimum sentence of six months and the maximum sentence, which may extend up to three years. The Act does not contain any provision, which makes the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act as 'non-bailable' one.

( 5 ) THE Act seeks to define the 'copyright' and prescribe punishment for imprisonment thereof. The offence is obviously, as can be seen from Section 70 of the Act, cognizable and triable by a court, which is not inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial magistrate of First class. Therefore, there has been no provision in the Act which makes offence clearly a 'non-bailable' one. Undoubtedly, the offence punishable under section 63 of the Act is triable by a criminal court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class or metropolitan Magistrate adopting the procedure envisaged under the provisions of the Cr. P. C. The Cr. P. C. applies proprio vigore for the trial of an offence under the Act. In the absence of any specific provision, under the act, making the offence 'non'bailable' one has to fall back upon the Schedule-l appended to the Cr. P. C. Part-ll classifies the offences against other laws, which are laws other than the various categories of crimes enumerated in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document