Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Lahari Recording Company (respondent no. 2), a music company, against ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Ola Cabs) and its directors for allegedly playing copyrighted music videos in Ola Prime cabs under the feature 'Ola Play' without a license, amounting to commercial exploitation. A complaint was lodged on 13-05-2017 before the Additional Commissioner of Police, leading to registration of FIR No. 191/2017 under Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957 by the Jeevan Bhima Nagar police. The petitioners filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. Facts: The 1st petitioner, Ola Cabs, had introduced a feature displaying music videos on screens fitted to headrests in its cabs. The 2nd respondent, owning copyright in several music works, alleged that this feature involved unauthorized commercial use of copyrighted content. On receiving the complaint, the police registered the FIR and initiated investigation. Aggrieved, the petitioners contended that the police lacked jurisdiction as the alleged offence under Section 63 was non-cognizable and the complaint was based merely on belief. Legal Issues: The primary question was whether an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is cognizable or non-cognizable, thereby determining the validity of police action without a Magistrate's order under Section 155(2) CrPC. Secondary issues included whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence. Arguments: The petitioners argued that Section 63, with punishment ranging from 6 months to 3 years, fell under the Schedule II entry for 'imprisonment for less than 3 years', hence non-cognizable; thus, the police investigation was void ab initio. They further contended the complaint lacked material evidence. The respondents countered that since the maximum punishment could be 3 years, it was punishable with 'imprisonment for 3 years' and thus cognizable and non-bailable as per the Schedule, justifying the investigation. Court's Analysis: The Court began by tracing the history of Section 63, which initially provided for punishment up to one year, making it non-cognizable. By the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984, the punishment was enhanced to three years, with minimum six months and fine. The Court noted the objects and reasons of the amendment, highlighting the intent to combat piracy. It then examined the scheme under CrPC: Section 155 mandates that in non-cognizable cases, police must refer the informant to a Magistrate and cannot investigate without an order. The Court turned to Schedule II of CrPC, which classifies offences under other laws based on quantum of punishment. The critical entry states: if punishment is for less than 3 years, it is non-cognizable and bailable; if for 3 years and upwards, it is cognizable and non-bailable. The Court posed the question whether 'punishable with imprisonment... which may extend to three years' falls within the former or latter category. The Court began discussing precedents, specifically citing a Bombay High Court decision, but the text ends abruptly. Decision: The judgment is incomplete; the final decision and ratio are not captured. Therefore, the outcome remains undetermined.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizability of Offences - Classification of Offence under Section 63, Copyright Act, 1957 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 155 and Schedule II - The Court considered whether an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years falls under the category of 'imprisonment for less than 3 years' or '3 years and upwards' in Schedule II of CrPC; the petitioners sought quashing of FIR on the ground that Section 63 is non-cognizable and the police investigation was without jurisdiction; the Court examined the objects and reasons of the 1984 amendment and relevant precedents to determine police power to investigate without Magistrate's order. (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence, and whether the police had jurisdiction to register and investigate the FIR without a Magistrate's order under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Law Points
- classification of offences
- Schedule II CrPC
- cognizable vs non-cognizable
- police jurisdiction to investigate
- Section 155 CrPC
- interpretation of 'imprisonment for less than 3 years'
