SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Ker) 257

R.BASANT
Abdul Sathar – Appellant
Versus
Nodal Officer, Anti-Piracy Cell, Kerala Crime Branch Office – Respondent


Advocates:
P. P. Thajudeen, Mansoor B. H., for Petitioner; Govt. Pleader S. U. Nazar for Respondents.

Judgement

ORDER :- 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 Sect














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top