CHAPTER XIII: OFFENCES
This chapter marks a major shift. We are no longer talking about civil remedies (suing for money). We are now talking about criminal offences (being arrested, facing a police case, and going to jail).
Section 63: Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights…
This is the main section that makes copyright piracy a crime.
The Legal Text
“Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of—
(a) the copyright in a work, or
(b) any other right conferred by this Act [except the right conferred by section 53A],
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Crime: It is a crime to “knowingly” infringe or “abet” (help) someone infringe:
- (a) A copyright (e.g., copying a movie).
- (b) Any other right (e.g., a performer’s right), except the Artist’s Resale Right (Section 53A, which is purely a civil money matter).
- The Key Word: “Knowingly.” To be found guilty, the prosecutor must prove you knew what you were doing was illegal.
- The Punishment (Minimums are Key):
- Jail: A minimum of 6 months, up to 3 years.
- Fine: A minimum of ₹50,000, up to ₹2,00,000.
- Real-World Example: A person runs a business that sells pirated copies of new software. He is “knowingly” infringing. The police can arrest him. If he is convicted, the judge must give him at least 6 months in jail and at least a ₹50,000 fine.
The Legal Text (Proviso)
“Provided that [where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business] the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Exception: A judge is allowed to give a sentence below the 6-month / ₹50,000 minimum.
- The Condition: The judge can only do this if the infringement was not for commercial profit (i.e., not for “gain in the course of trade or business”).
- The judge must also write down their “adequate and special reasons” for being lenient.
- Real-World Example: A university student downloads a pirated copy of a textbook and shares it with five friends for free. He is not making any money. The court finds him guilty. The judge can say, “Because this was not a commercial operation, I am waiving the mandatory minimums and imposing a fine of only ₹5,000.”
The Legal Text (Explanation)
“Explanation.—Construction of a building or other structure which infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be an offence under this section.”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Rule: Just like in Section 59, building an infringing building (from stolen architectural plans) is not a crime.
- Meaning: You can be sued for it in civil court (for money), but you cannot be arrested and put in jail for it.
Section 63A: Enhanced penalty on second and subsequent convictions
This section is for repeat offenders.
The Legal Text
“Whoever having already been convicted of an offence under section 63 is again convicted of any such offence shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:”
[…Provisos…]
Simple English Breakdown
- The Rule: If you have already been convicted once under Section 63, and you are caught and convicted a second time (or third, or fourth…).
- The Enhanced Punishment: The minimum penalties are doubled.
- Jail: A minimum of 1 year (up to 3 years).
- Fine: A minimum of ₹1,00,000 (up to ₹2,00,000).
- The Provisos:
- The same exception for non-commercial infringers applies. A judge can still go below the 1-year / ₹1,00,000 minimum if the repeat offence was also not for profit.
- The second proviso is a historical note that convictions before 1984 don’t count towards this rule.
- Real-World Example: A man is convicted in 2023 for running a pirate DVD shop and gets a 6-month sentence. He gets out, and in 2025 he is caught doing the exact same thing. This time, the judge must sentence him to at least 1 year in jail and a ₹1,00,000 fine.
Section 64: Power of police to seize infringing copies
This section gives the police the power to act quickly, without a warrant.
The Legal Text (Sub-section 1)
“(1) Any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if he is satisfied that an offence under section 63… has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, seize without warrant, all copies of the work, and all plates used for the purposes of making infringing copies of the work, wherever found, and all copies and plates so seized shall, as soon as practicable be produced before a Magistrate.”
Simple English Breakdown
- Who: A police officer (at least the rank of Sub-Inspector).
- When: If they have a good reason (“is satisfied”) to believe that a copyright crime (under Sec 63) is happening, has happened, or is about to happen.
- The Power: They can seize without a warrant:
- “all copies of the work” (the pirated DVDs, books, etc.).
- “all plates” (the equipment used to make the copies, like DVD burners, hard drives, or printing masters).
- The Duty: After seizing the goods, the officer must take them to a Magistrate (a judge) as soon as possible.
- Real-World Example: A Sub-Inspector gets a tip that a warehouse is being used to burn thousands of pirated movie DVDs. He does not need to go to a judge to get a warrant. He can immediately raid the warehouse, seize all the DVDs and all the computer-towers used for burning, and arrest the people inside.
The Legal Text (Sub-section 2)
“(2) Any person having an interest in any copies of a work, or plates seized under sub-section (1) may, within fifteen days of such seizure, make an application to the Magistrate for such copies, or plates being restored to him and the Magistrate… shall make such order on the application as he may deem fit.”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Rule: Any person who claims to be the rightful owner of the seized goods (e.g., the shop owner) has 15 days to go to the Magistrate.
- The Purpose: To apply to have their goods “restored” (given back).
- The Decision: The Magistrate will hear from both the applicant and the police/prosecutor and then decide whether to return the goods (e.g., if the goods were seized by mistake) or keep them as evidence.
- Real-World Example: The police raid a computer shop and seize all 50 computers, suspecting they are loaded with pirated software. The shop owner can apply to the Magistrate, prove that 40 of the computers were clean and were just normal stock, and ask for those 40 to be restored to him so he can continue his business.
Section 65: Possession of plates for purpose of making infringing copies
This section makes it a separate crime to just own the piracy equipment.
The Legal Text
“Any person who knowingly makes, or has in his possession, any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Crime: It is a crime to “knowingly” make or just possess a “plate” (any master copy or device for piracy) with the intent to make pirated copies.
- The Distinction:
- Section 63 is for the act of infringing (e.g., selling the final pirated copy).
- Section 65 is for possessing the tools to infringe, even if you haven’t sold anything yet.
- This allows police to arrest the pirate-manufacturer, not just the pirate-salesman.
- The Penalty: Up to 2 years in jail, plus a fine.
- Real-World Example: Police raid a lab and find a “glass master” (the original mould for stamping CDs) for a new, unreleased album. They haven’t made any CDs yet. The person can’t be charged under Sec 63 for infringing (selling copies), but they can be charged and jailed under Sec 65 for possessing the plate.
Section 66: Disposal of infringing copies or plates…
This section explains what the court can do with the pirated goods and piracy equipment after they have been seized by the police.
The Legal Text
“The Court trying any offence under this Act may, whether the alleged offender is convicted or not, order that all copies of the work or all plates in the possession of the alleged offender, which appear to it to be infringing copies, or plates for the purpose of making infringing copies, be delivered up to the owner of the copyright or may make such order as it may deem fit regarding the disposal of such copies or plates.”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Rule: The court (the Magistrate) gets to decide the fate of all seized items (pirated copies and “plates” like hard drives, DVD burners, etc.).
- The Key Point: The court can make this order “whether the alleged offender is convicted or not.” This is crucial. Even if the accused person is found “not guilty” (e.g., due to a technicality or lack of evidence against that person), the court can still order the pirated goods to be dealt with, because the goods themselves are illegal.
- The Court’s Options: The judge can order the items to be:
- Delivered up to the owner: Given to the rightful copyright owner (e.g., the film studio or publisher).
- Disposed of: This usually means “destroyed.” The court can order the police to destroy all the pirated copies.
Real-World Example
- Police raid a shop and seize 1,000 pirated movie DVDs and the computer used to burn them. The shop owner is arrested.
- Scenario A (Conviction): The owner is found guilty. The judge sentences him and also orders the 1,000 DVDs and the computer to be “disposed of” (destroyed).
- Scenario B (Acquittal): The shop owner is found “not guilty” because the prosecution can’t prove he was the one who made the copies. However, the DVDs are obviously pirated. The judge still has the power to order the 1,000 DVDs to be destroyed, even though the owner is acquitted.
Section 67: Penalty for making false entries in register, etc., …
This section makes it a crime to lie on or tamper with the official Register of Copyrights.
The Legal Text
“Any person who,—
(a) makes or causes to be made a false entry in the Register of Copyrights…, or
(b) makes or causes to be made a writing falsely purporting to be a copy of any entry in such register, or
(c) produces or tenders or causes to be produced or tendered as evidence any such entry or writing, knowing the same to be false,
shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
Simple English Breakdown
It is a crime to do any of the following, punishable by up to 1 year in jail, or a fine, or both:
- 67(a) [Lying to the Register]: Knowingly giving false information to the Registrar of Copyrights when trying to register a work.
- Example: A person finds an old, unpublished poem and submits it to the Copyright Office, falsely claiming he is the author to get a copyright certificate in his name.
- 67(b) [Faking a Certificate]: Creating a fake document that looks like an official copy of an entry from the Copyright Register.
- Example: A person uses Photoshop to create a fake “Certificate of Registration” for a song he didn’t write.
- 67(c) [Using a Fake Certificate as Evidence]: Knowingly using one of these false entries or fake certificates in a legal proceeding (like a court case or a dispute) as if it were real.
- Example: During a lawsuit, the person from the previous example gives the judge the fake, photoshopped certificate to “prove” he owns the song. This act itself is a crime.
Section 68: [Omitted by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provision) Act, 2023… w.e.f. 1-8-2024.]
Penalty for making false statements for the purpose of deceiving…
This section makes it a broader crime to lie to any copyright authority (not just the Register) to influence a decision.
The Legal Text
“Any person who,—
(a) with a view to deceiving any authority or officer in the execution of the provisions of this Act, or
(b) with a view to procuring or influencing the doing or omission of anything in relation to this Act…
makes a false statement or representation knowing the same to be false, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Crime: You can be jailed for up to 1 year for knowingly making a false statement to a copyright authority (like the Registrar or the Appellate Board) in order to:
- (a) Deceive them.
- (b) Influence their decision (i.e., to get them to do something, or not do something).
- The Difference from Sec 67: Section 67 is specifically about the Copyright Register. This section is about any other false statement made to an authority (e.g., in an affidavit, application, or testimony).
Real-World Example
- A broadcaster wants a “compulsory license” (under Section 31) to play a musician’s songs. To get this, he must show the Copyright Board that the musician “refused” to grant a license.
- The broadcaster submits a false, back-dated letter claiming he tried to contact the musician, or a false affidavit claiming the musician is “untraceable,” when in reality, he never tried.
- He is making a false statement to influence the Board’s decision, which is a crime under this section.
Section 68A: Penalty for contravention of section 52A
This section puts criminal penalties behind the “labelling” rules from Section 52A.
The Legal Text
“Any person who publishes a sound recording or a video film in contravention of the provisions of section 52A shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Rule: Section 52A requires all published sound recordings and video films to have specific labels on them (e.g., name of the copyright owner, year of publication, censor certificate for films).
- The Crime: This section makes it a crime to publish a CD, DVD, or video film without those required labels.
- The Punishment: This is a serious offence, with a penalty of up to 3 years in jail and a fine.
- The Purpose: This helps police, customs, and even consumers easily identify a pirated copy. A legitimate copy will always have the labels, while a pirated one almost never will.
Real-World Example
- A video company wants to rush out a new movie on DVD. To save time and money, it doesn’t print the Censor Certificate, the publisher’s address, or the copyright year on the DVD cover.
- Even if the company had the right to publish the movie, the act of publishing it without the mandatory labels is a crime. The company’s director can be prosecuted under this section.
Section 69: Offences by companies
This crucial section answers the question: “When a company commits a crime, who goes to jail?”
The Legal Text (Sub-section 1)
“(1) Where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for, the conduct of the business… as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty… and shall be liable to be proceeded against…
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Rule: When a company commits a copyright crime (e.g., mass-piracy under Sec 63), the law automatically holds two parties guilty:
- The company itself (which can be fined).
- “Every person in charge of” the company’s business (e.g., the CEO, Managing Director, or General Manager).
- The “Innocent Director” Defence (Proviso): The CEO or Director who is automatically charged can get off the hook, but the burden of proof is on them. They must prove one of two things:
- “Without his knowledge”: That the crime happened completely behind their back.
- “Exercised all due diligence”: That they did everything a reasonable boss should do to prevent the crime (e.g., they had strict anti-piracy policies, sent out regular compliance memos, and the crime was committed by a rogue employee despite these efforts).
Real-World Example (Proviso)
- A major software company is caught using pirated software on all its computers. The CEO is automatically charged.
- The CEO’s defence: He shows the court the official “Company Anti-Piracy Policy,” emails sent every month warning employees not to use pirated software, and the records of the internal audit he ordered. He argues he “exercised all due diligence” and that a low-level IT manager secretly installed the software against orders. The CEO may be found innocent, even though the company is still guilty and will be fined.
The Legal Text (Sub-section 2)
“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence… has been committed by a company, and it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any negligence on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer… such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty… and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Rule: This section goes beyond the person “in charge” and targets specific senior officers.
- Meaning: If it can be proven that any Director, Manager, or Secretary knew about the crime and either:
- “Consented”: Actively agreed to it.
- “Connived”: Knew about it and “looked the other way,” allowing it to happen.
- “Negligence”: Was so careless in their specific job that they allowed the crime to happen.
…then that specific person is also personally guilty and can be jailed.
- The Difference from (1): Sub-section (1) makes the person at the top (CEO) automatically responsible. Sub-section (2) targets any senior officer whose personal actions (or lack thereof) led to the crime.
Real-World Example
- In the same software piracy case, the investigation reveals the CEO was innocent, but the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) “connived” with the IT manager (he knew about the pirated software and did nothing because it saved his department money).
- The CEO is found innocent (under the Proviso to 69(1)).
- The company is found guilty.
- The CTO is personally found guilty (under 69(2)) and can be sent to jail.
The Legal Text (Explanation)
“Explanation.—For the purposes of this section—
(a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of persons; and
(b) “director”, in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.”
Simple English Breakdown
- 69(a): “Company” is a broad term. It includes not just a formal “Ltd.” or “Pvt. Ltd.” company, but also a Partnership “Firm” or any “association of persons.”
- 69(b): If the offence is committed by a Partnership Firm, the word “Director” means a “Partner.” So, all partners can be held responsible.
Section 70: Cognizance of offences
This section specifies which type of court is allowed to hear these criminal cases.
The Legal Text
“No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act.”
Simple English Breakdown
- The Rule: A copyright crime (like a Section 63 case) cannot be tried in a low-level or minor court.
- Meaning: The case must be heard by a judge who holds at least the rank of “Metropolitan Magistrate” (in a big city) or “Judicial Magistrate of the first class” (in other areas).
- The Purpose: This ensures that these complex criminal cases are handled by a judge with sufficient experience and authority.
Real-World Example
- When the police file their final charge sheet after an arrest for piracy, the case must be assigned to the local court’s “Judicial Magistrate of the first class,” not to any lower-ranking magistrate.