LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/m-s-knit-pro-international-vs-the-state-of-nct-of-delhi-anr-20220520/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

M/s Knit Pro International vs The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
20 May 2022
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022
Result
Allowed
Bench
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
Citation
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 290 : 2022 INSC 621
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 3 S.C.R. 290 : 2022 INSC 621
Headnote

Copyright Act, 1957 – s.63 – Whether, the offence under s.63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence – Held: For offence u/s.63 of the Copyright Act, the maximum punishment which can be imposed would be three years – In that view of the matter considering Part II of the First Schedule of the CrPC, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence – High Court committed grave error in holding that the offence u/s.63 of the Copyright Act is a noncognizable offence – Offence u/s.63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence – CrPC – First Schedule, Part II.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1. For the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine. Therefore, the maximum punishment which can be imposed would be three years. Therefore, the Magistrate may sentence the accused for a period of three years also. In that view of the matter considering Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C., if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be noncognizable. The language of the provision in Part II of First Schedule is very clear and there is no ambiguity whatsoever. [Para 5.3][295-D-F]

2. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence. The offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court taking a contrary view is hereby quashed and set aside and the criminal proceedings against respondent no.2 for the offence under Sections 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act now shall be proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits treating the same as a cognizable and non-bailable offence. [Paras 6, 7][295-G-H; 296-A-B]

Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC

67 : [2017] 8 SCR 785 – held inapplicable.

Read the full headnote (2 more paragraphs)

Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar, AIR 2001 SC 830 : [2001] 1

SCR 821 – referred to.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 applicati
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →