Offences of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act
Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 deals with offences of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act. 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 t The Act came into force on 21 Jan 1958.
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 1[except the right conferred by section 53A],
2[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:]
Provided that 1[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.]
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.
Section 63, The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Heinz Italia vs Dabur India LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a trademark and its distinctive packaging have been used continuously by the original proprietor and subsequent assignee for several decades (since 1940) and have acquired significant reputation in the market, and a competitor launches a product with a phonetically similar mark and deceptively similar packaging (nearly identical color scheme and visual depiction) calculated to confuse consumers, an ad-interim injunction must ordinarily be granted to protect the trademark proprietor's goodwill and prevent passing off, despite the disputed generic nature of component words, on the basis that prior user combined with acquired reputation and prima facie dishonest intention constitute sufficient grounds for immediate relief pending trial, without awaiting full evidence on the generic word exception.
On this section: Applied for infringement of copyright in artistic work used on packaging and label design
-
Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa v. State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-3.pdf 2021-02-26 DATE VERIFIED. Sarang V. Kotwal J. ABA 336/2021. Isolate: Copyright Act s.63 (and Trade Marks Act s.103) punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years fall in CrPC Sch. I Part II class II — cognizable and non-bailable; anticipatory bail is therefore maintainable. Knit Pro SC signed reportable is pronouncement-only on this file — this is the labelled merits isolate. Leading HC. Distinctive (Piyush Ranipa, Jain Irrigation fake HDPE). Map 63 and 103. Do not pad TM 115 (Registrar-opinion point distinguished, not the isolate).
On this section: Copyright Act s.63, being punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, is cognizable and non-bailable under CrPC Sch. I Part II (Piyush Ranipa). Knit Pro SC signed reportable is pronouncement-only on this file.
-
Dongri Police stn. vs Atik Ahmed Iliyas Ahmed Shaikh USec. 483, 485, 486 IPC
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To secure conviction under Sections 483, 485, 486, 487 of IPC and Sections 103, 104 of Trade Mark Act and Section 63 of Copyright Act, the prosecution must prove: (1) that the trade mark or copyright is registered with statutory authorities; (2) that the property was properly seized from the accused with adherence to procedural requirements including panch witness corroboration and accused's signature on seizure memo; (3) that the accused was present and identified at the time of seizure; (4) that the property was properly labeled, numbered and sealed; (5) that specific individuals were deceived and induced to purchase duplicate products; and (6) that the accused was involved in making or possessing counterfeit marks or instruments. Failure to prove any of these essential ingredients results in acquittal.
On this section: Copyright infringement - Court held that prosecution failed to prove that Tanmay Bidi was copyright work and that accused infringed the copyright
-
Mohammad Iliaz vs Mohammad Ghouz
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal trial, the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When the prosecution fails to produce crucial documentary evidence such as original trademark certificates, copyright register extracts, and original labels, and when seizure mahazars are not corroborated by attesting witnesses, the prosecution case fails. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution cannot establish the essential ingredients of the offence through admissible and corroborated evidence.
On this section: Infringement of copyright - Accused charged with violating copyright of M/s S.K Beedi Works by using fake labels on beedi bundles. Court found no material evidence comparing original and duplicate labels to establish infringement.
-
Ramesh Ajmani vs State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A party cannot raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time in a High Court application under Section 482 CrPC without having raised it before the trial court. Jurisdictional objections under Chapter XIII CrPC must be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage, and only after exhausting remedies at the trial court level can such objections be raised in the High Court. The High Court will not exercise its discretionary power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on jurisdictional grounds that were not raised before the trial court.
On this section: Infringement of copyright; the original complaint was filed under this section read with Section 406 IPC
-
Charanjit vs Cosco India Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal matter involving trademark and copyright infringement has been compromised between the parties and the accused has cooperated in the investigation with no incriminating material to be recovered, anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with appropriate bail conditions.
On this section: Criminal provision for copyright infringement; the petitioner was accused under this section
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C, is by the complainant challenging the acquittal of respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court. 3. Complainant is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. Complainant initially filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging offences punishable …
-
… The application stands disposed of. W.P. (CRL.) No. 1376/2020 & CRL. M.A. No. 12009/2020 (for interim stay) The principal prayer in the petition is for quashing of FIR No. 103/2020 dated 17.08.2020 registered under section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 at P.S.: Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The essence of the dispute is that certain products under the brand name Dermacol are alleged to be on sale on the Flipkart electronic market place …
-
… the material objects seized in pursuance to Ext.P3 FIR within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; - b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction of order commanding respondent No.2 to include offences punishable under section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and section 63 of the Copyright act, 1957 in the scope of investigation conducted pursuant to Ext.P3 FIR; - 4 - c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction of order commanding respondent No.2 to arrest the 4 th respondent, interrogate him, complete the investigation and to submit the police report …
Questions about Section 63
What have the courts held on Section 63 of the Copyright Act?
Heinz Italia vs Dabur India LTD (18 May 2007) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Applied for infringement of copyright in artistic work used on packaging and label design. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 63 of the Copyright Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Copyright Act 63, section 63 Copyright Act, section 63 of the Copyright Act. People searching for it also type copyright act 63 65 and copyright act 63 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Heinz Italia vs Dabur India LTD (18 May 2007).
What should I read with Section 63 of the Copyright Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 53A (Resale share right in original copies), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 63 of the Copyright Act come into force?
Section 63 of the Copyright Act, cited as Copyright Act 63, came into force on 21 Jan 1958, having been enacted on 04 Jun 1957. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.