M/S Knit Pro International vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 May, 2022
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
The Supreme Court of India declared that offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act (1957) are cognizable and non-bailable in a decision pertaining to copyright law on May 20, 2022.
The Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr (Criminal Appeal 807, 2022) was the case that the court was hearing when it elevated copyright infringement to a more serious offence than forgery and deceit, which are non-cognisable.
The decision is noteworthy because Indian courts have discussed whether copyright infringement is a cognizable offence or not, as well as whether it is a crime that has the provision to be released on bail or not.
Section 63 of the Copyright Act states that the length of the sentence must "not be less than six months but which may exceed to three years."
A cognisable offence is one for which "a police officer may arrest without a warrant," according to the Criminal Procedure Code (1973), whereas a non-cognisable offence is one for which "a police officer shall not arrest without warrant." Additionally, offences that only carry a fine or a sentence of less than three years in prison are classified as non-cognisable and bailable. Crimes that carry a minimum sentence of three years in jail and a maximum sentence of seven years are both cognizable and non-bailable.
Since the word "may" [extend to three years] appears in Section 63 of the Copyright Act, high courts have expressed varying opinions regarding the precise classification of the offence of copyright infringement.
It's interesting to note that the Supreme Court's stance in the current case differs from its decision in a related case in 2007.
The Supreme Court decided that a crime punished by Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act (1962) would be bailable in Avinash Bhosale v. Union of India (14 SCC 325, 2007). The aforementioned section's phrasing is comparable to Section 63 of the Copyright Act, which imposes a penalty of "imprisonment which may extend to three years." Given that both legislation had the exact same text, the current situation should have been covered by this prior interpretation.
However, the Supreme Court has cited its finding in Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar (AIR 2001 SC 830), in which it was decided that the highest sentence that may be imposed for a crime could not be disregarded for the purposes of classifying the offence.
Recent rulings by the high courts of Rajasthan (Nathu Ram v State of Rajasthan, DB Crl, 1/2020), Bombay (Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa v The State of Maharashtra, Anticipatory Bail Application 336 OF 2021), and Karnataka (ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd v State of Karnataka, writ petition 32942 of 2017, GM- RES) treat violations of Section 63 of
Copyright violations are by no means a minor offence. However, this view has a propensity to severely restrict artistic expression. The prospect of being detained for copyright infringement under a cognisable, non-bailable offence can have a chilling impact on content creation.
A rights holder's allegation of infringement would have sufficient force to subject people who are developing new content to censorship or just deter them from doing so. A charge of a cognizable offence that is not subject to bail may be used arbitrarily by local law enforcement. It's crucial to keep in mind that many copyright infractions are disputable and defendable under one of the several exceptions permitted by Section 52 of the Copyright Act (eg, fair use).
On the other hand, this might be the weapon that copyright holders need to combat the pervasive piracy in India. An infringer may stop misusing without waiting for a criminal complaint to be filed against it if there is a potential for committing a cognisable, non-bailable offence.
It will consequently take some time for the real effects of the decision to become clear.
Comments