Abstract

The problem with determining the nature of offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is that the Act itself does not specify whether the offence of copyright infringement is bailable and cognizable. Hence, Part II of the First schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which lays down the classification of offences against other Laws has to be referred. The confusion arises due to the language used in Section 63, making an offence under the section punishable with in imprisonment “a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years”. The terms “may extend to three years” makes it difficult to categorize the offence under Section 63 into the three categories provided in the CrPC. To solve this difficulty, various High Courts have made attempts to classify the offence under either category two or category three of the table resulting in contrasting views. This paper aims to critically analyse the legal history of the issue related to determining the nature of offence of copyright infringement and whether the judgement in M/s Knit Pro International v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. solves this conundrum.

Keywords