Copyright Enforcement: Understanding Court Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

When someone reproduces a book without permission, uploads pirated software, or sells counterfeit copies of a film, the law does not treat it as a minor irregularity. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, such acts are criminal offences – and how those offences reach a court, and which court gets to hear them, is governed by a precise legal framework. Two provisions sit at the centre of this framework: Section 62, which deals with civil jurisdiction, and Section 70, which determines which criminal court can take cognizance of copyright offences. Understanding both is essential for anyone navigating copyright enforcement in India.

What does “cognizance” mean in copyright law? 🔗

Before getting into the specifics, it helps to be clear on what “taking cognizance” actually means. When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, it is the formal judicial step of acknowledging that a crime has been committed and initiating proceedings against the accused. It is not the same as an arrest or an FIR – it is the point at which the court itself enters the picture and assumes authority over the matter.

In the context of copyright law, this step is governed by Section 70 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which states plainly: no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence under this Act. This means that irrespective of where the FIR is filed or where the infringing activity took place, the trial cannot be conducted by a lower court. A Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, for instance, has no authority to try copyright offences.

Why this minimum threshold matters 🔗

The requirement of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class is not just procedural formality. It reflects the legislature’s intent to ensure that copyright offences are handled by courts with sufficient competence, experience, and authority. Copyright cases often involve complex questions of ownership, originality, licensing, and damages – not the kind of matters that should be resolved by the lowest rungs of the magistracy.

This threshold also connects directly to the classification of copyright offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 63 of the Copyright Act makes infringement punishable with imprisonment of not less than six months, extendable up to three years, along with a fine. Under Part II of the First Schedule of the CrPC, offences carrying a maximum imprisonment of three years or more – but not exceeding seven years – are classified as cognizable and non-bailable. This means police can register an FIR and arrest the accused without a warrant, making copyright infringement a serious criminal matter from the moment it is reported.

The Supreme Court settles the debate: Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi 🔗

For years, courts across India disagreed on whether copyright infringement under Section 63 was a cognizable offence. Some High Courts held it was non-cognizable; others took the opposite view. The matter was conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in M/s Knit Pro International v. The State of NCT of Delhi (2022).

In that case, Knit Pro, a manufacturer of knitting needles, alleged that a respondent had copied their copyrighted product design. After an FIR was registered, the Delhi High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the offence under Section 63 was non-cognizable. The Supreme Court reversed this finding. It held that since the maximum punishment under Section 63 can extend to three years, the offence squarely falls within the second classification of Part II of the First Schedule of the CrPC – making it cognizable and non-bailable. The ruling elevated copyright infringement to a more serious category than offences like forgery and cheating, which remain non-cognizable.

The practical consequence: police can now register an FIR for copyright infringement without waiting for court permission, and the accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right.

Territorial jurisdiction in criminal copyright cases 🔗

Knowing which level of court can hear a case is only one part of the equation. The other is determining where – in terms of geography – the trial should take place. This is the question of territorial jurisdiction.

An offence can be tried in a court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is committed. If infringing copies are circulated across multiple locations, the offence is treated as having been committed at every place the copies were intended to reach and have actually reached. This is a significant rule because copyright infringement – especially online – rarely stays confined to a single location. A pirated film uploaded in one city may be downloaded in dozens of others, and each of those locations could potentially be a valid venue for criminal proceedings.

The investigation of a cognizable offence begins when a police officer has reason to suspect the commission of the offence. The Station House Officer must then send a report to a Magistrate having the power to take cognizance of such an offence on a police report, before proceeding to investigate or take measures for discovery and seizure.

Section 62: civil jurisdiction runs on different rules 🔗

It is worth distinguishing between criminal and civil jurisdiction here, because they operate on entirely different logic. Section 70 governs criminal proceedings. Civil suits for copyright infringement are governed by Section 62 of the Copyright Act.

Every civil suit arising under the Copyright Act in respect of infringement must be instituted in a district court having jurisdiction. That district court includes any court within whose local limits the person instituting the suit actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain at the time the suit is filed – notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

This is a deliberate departure from the usual CPC rules, which typically require a plaintiff to file a case either where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arose. The Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) held that Section 62 must be interpreted purposively – a plaintiff can file a suit where they reside or carry on business, without having to travel to wherever the defendant is located or where the infringement occurred. This is especially important for individual creators and smaller right-holders who may lack the resources to litigate far from home.

How the civil and criminal frameworks interact 🔗

A copyright owner facing infringement typically has a choice: pursue civil remedies, criminal prosecution, or both simultaneously. The two tracks are not mutually exclusive. In civil proceedings, the focus is on compensation – injunctions, damages, accounts of profits. In criminal proceedings, the focus shifts to punishment and deterrence – imprisonment and fines.

Criminal offences under the Copyright Act are taken cognizance of and tried at the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, following the procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the same manner as all other cognizable offences in India. Meanwhile, civil suits follow the separate jurisdictional rules under Section 62, which prioritise the plaintiff’s convenience.

The police also have independent powers during the criminal process. Under Section 64 of the Copyright Act, as amended in 1984, a police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector or above can seize infringing copies without a warrant if satisfied that an offence under Section 63 has been, is being, or is likely to be committed. This is a notably broad power – seizure does not require prior judicial approval, which makes early enforcement action possible but also means it depends heavily on the discretion of individual officers.

Penalties and enhanced punishment for repeat offenders 🔗

The Copyright Act prescribes a clear penalty structure for criminal infringement. The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 enhanced punishment to imprisonment for a minimum of six months, extendable to a maximum of three years, along with a fine of not less than ₹50,000. Courts retain discretion to reduce both the imprisonment term and the fine in special cases. For second and subsequent convictions, the minimum imprisonment is enhanced to one year and the minimum fine to ₹1 lakh.

Section 63B of the Act goes further, making it a specific offence to knowingly use an infringing copy of a computer programme. Any person who knowingly uses an infringing copy of a computer programme is punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than seven days, extendable to three years. Even the lower end of this range – seven days – is intended to signal that digital piracy is taken seriously by the law.

The procedural significance of getting jurisdiction right 🔗

Filing a criminal complaint or civil suit in the wrong court is not a technicality that courts overlook lightly. If a copyright infringement case is brought before a Magistrate who lacks the requisite grade – say, a Second Class Judicial Magistrate – the trial itself can be challenged and set aside. Similarly, a civil suit filed in a court that lacks territorial jurisdiction may be returned to the plaintiff for re-filing before the competent court, causing costly delays.

Getting jurisdiction right from the outset – both in terms of court level and territorial reach – is therefore not just a procedural nicety. It determines whether the enforcement action stands up to legal scrutiny, and whether the right-holder gets a fair hearing without unnecessary procedural obstacles.

The interaction between Section 62 (civil jurisdiction), Section 70 (criminal court competence), and the CrPC’s classification of cognizable offences forms the backbone of copyright enforcement proceedings in India. Together, these provisions ensure that copyright cases are heard by courts with the authority and competence to deliver meaningful outcomes – not just for right-holders, but for the integrity of the enforcement system as a whole.

What do you think? If copyright infringement is now a non-bailable offence in India, does that create a sufficient deterrent against large-scale digital piracy – or do procedural gaps in enforcement still undermine the law’s intent? And given that a civil suit under Section 62 can be filed where the plaintiff resides, does this provision genuinely level the playing field for individual creators against well-resourced infringers?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1367?sam_handle=123456789/1362
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1380308/
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/180042115/
4. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-copyright-infringement-section-63-cognizable-knit-pro-international-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-2022-livelaw-sc-505-199775
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/999236/