Supreme Court referred to the Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. to decide if a penal provision in any law is a cognizable or non-cognizable offence.
5.1 The short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is, whether, the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offence as considered by the Trial Court or a non-cognizable offence as observed and held by the High Court.
5.2 While answering the aforesaid question Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C. are required to be referred to.
5.3 Thus, for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 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 learned 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 acognizable 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 non-cognizable. In view of the above clear position of law, the decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) relied upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The language of the provision in Part II of First Schedule is very clear and there is no ambiguity whatsoever.
Citations :
Other Sources :
Post Views: 515
Shades of Knife
Disclaimer:
The materials provided herein are solely for information purposes. No attorney-client relationship is created when you access or use the site or the materials. The information presented on this site does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for legal advice from an attorney licensed in your state.
Judgments curated, reproduced from sci.gov.in, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other similar Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in, dcourts.gov.in or any other Government websites such as Gazettes and repositories of Government Orders and Commented in accordance with Section 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) and any other applicable public disclosure laws/provisions in India and in various other countries.
I neither have control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in entire form, nor I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Read more gyan here.
Though, I can mask/redact content (like names of parties from cause title) from the Judgments posted on my site, on request for any parties to a case, even though, I am not legally obligated to do so, except for express direction from a Competent Court.
Om Shanthi !!!
Oh, by the way, my competent Legal team delivers time-bound legal reliefs to victims of false family and matrimonial cases at
We are on social media too.
Just google for: Anagha Legal Reliefs
