Copyright Criminal Route in India: Section 63

Explainer · Copyright Law

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

Someone has copied your book, your software, your film or your designs and is selling the copies. A civil suit for an injunction will take time. You hear that copyright infringement is also a crime, and that the police can raid the seller. Is that true, and is it wise to use it? This explainer covers the criminal route under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957: the punishment, what the police can do, what the Supreme Court has said, and the traps that make criminal complaints fail. Last verified October 2026.

01What Section 63 punishes

Section 63 makes it a crime to knowingly infringe copyright in a work, or to abet that infringement. The punishment is imprisonment for not less than six months, which may extend to three years, and a fine of not less than Rs 50,000, which may extend to Rs 2 lakh.

Section 63: six months to three years in prison, plus a fine of Rs 50,000 to Rs 2 lakh.

The special reasons proviso

If the infringement was not made for gain in the course of trade or business, the court may, for adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment, give a lighter sentence. That can mean jail for less than six months or a fine below Rs 50,000. So a small, non-commercial copier is treated differently from a pirate running a shop.

Repeat offenders: Section 63A

A person already convicted under Section 63 and convicted again faces a higher floor. Section 63A sets imprisonment of one year to three years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh to Rs 2 lakh for the second and every later conviction.

What counts as infringement

Section 63 depends on Section 51, which says when copyright is infringed, and Section 52, which lists acts that are not infringement (fair dealing for research, criticism, review, news reporting and similar). A defence under Section 52 is the first thing an accused will raise. If the act falls under Section 52, there is no offence.

02Related criminal provisions

Section 63 is the main offence, but the Act has a small family of related ones. Know them, because a complaint often relies on more than one.

• Section 63A: enhanced penalty for repeat convictions (above).
• Section 63B: knowingly using an infringing copy of a computer programme on a computer. This is the section behind software licence raids.
• Section 64: a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector may seize infringing copies and plates without a warrant, if he suspects an offence under Section 63 has been, is being or is likely to be committed.
• Sections 65, 65A and 65B: possessing plates for making infringing copies, circumventing technological protection measures, and tampering with rights management information.
• Section 69: offences by companies, where the persons in charge of the business can also be held liable.
• Section 70: courts below a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class cannot try these offences.

Section 66 lets the court order infringing copies to be delivered to the copyright owner. That is often what the owner really wants.

03How the criminal route works

A typical case moves in these steps.

1. Prove ownership and the copying. Keep proof of authorship, date of creation and first publication. Registration with the Copyright Office is not mandatory for copyright to exist, but a registration certificate is useful evidence. Check the register at copyright.gov.in.
2. Collect evidence of infringement. Purchase records, photographs, test buys, screenshots with dates, and the accused’s sales details.
3. Approach the police. Give a written complaint to the police station. Ask for an FIR. If the police refuse, the complainant can go to the Magistrate and ask for a direction to register an FIR.
4. Seizure. Under Section 64, the police may seize copies and plates. Seized goods must then be dealt with under the court’s control, and the accused can seek their return.
5. Investigation and charge sheet. The police may seek expert opinion on whether the works are substantially the same.
6. Trial. The case is tried by a Magistrate of the competent grade, under Section 70.

Procedure follows the criminal procedure code in force. Since 1 July 2024 that is the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

04What the Supreme Court said in Knit Pro

For years, High Courts disagreed on one question: can the police register an FIR for a Section 63 offence on their own, and can they arrest without a warrant? This is the question of whether the offence is cognizable and non-bailable.

In Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022, decided on 20 May 2022, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.) held that offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act are cognizable and non-bailable. The Court read the Act together with Part II of the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and held that an offence with imprisonment of three years or more falls in the category of cognizable and non-bailable offences.

In plain words: the police can register an FIR without waiting for a Magistrate, and an accused cannot claim bail as of right. The judgment is on the Supreme Court website and on Indian Kanoon.

05Criminal or civil?

The two routes are not rivals. Many owners use both. Here is a fair view of each.

Criminal action suits clear piracy: counterfeit books, pirated software, copied films, and shops selling bulk copies. It suits poorly where ownership or similarity is truly disputed. There, a civil suit with expert evidence is usually safer.

The same thinking applies to other IP. For a parallel on criminal offences in geographical indications, see GI infringement offences in India. For an IP rights outline in an institutional setting, see IP tools for universities and TTOs. For how civil and administrative remedies work on the patent side, see patent revocation and compulsory licensing.

06Common mistakes

• Using the police to win a commercial dispute. Courts can quash complaints that are really contract or ownership fights dressed as crime.
• Ignoring Section 52. Fair dealing and other exceptions are a full defence.
• Weak proof of ownership. Employment and commissioned work questions (Section 17) can decide who owns the copyright.
• Naming only the company. Section 69 can reach those in charge of the business, but the complaint must say what role each person played.
• Not checking recent High Court rulings. Quashing and bail orders in copyright cases come from many High Courts and change the practical picture.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

For a Section 63 matter, Claw works on the court side. It searches 30 crore+ judgments, so you can read how courts have applied Section 63, the Section 52 exceptions and the Knit Pro ruling, and it tracks cases, orders and hearings across 9,102 courts, benches and forums in under 5 seconds, covering Supreme Court judgments from 1950 and High Court judgments from 1990. It does not track copyright registration at the Copyright Office, and it does not use customer documents to train AI models.

To research Section 63 judgments or follow a criminal copyright matter through the courts, create a free Claw account and start with case search across Indian courts.

08Sources and further reading

• Section 63, Copyright Act, 1957: Indian Kanoon
• Section 63A, Copyright Act, 1957: Indian Kanoon
• Copyright Office, Government of India: copyright.gov.in
• India Code (bare Acts): indiacode.nic.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This is general information, not legal advice. Last verified October 2026.

09Frequently asked questions