IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4117 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.834/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- SASI, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, MANGATTU HOUSE, ILAVUMTHITTA, MEZHUVELI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4117 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The short question raised is whether Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offence or not. The said question has been considered in detail in the decision in Sureshkumar v. S.I. of Police (2007 (3) KLT 363). In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said decision reasons have been given in detail as to whether the offence under Section 63 of the Act would fall under the first, second or third category of cases referred therein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner strains to contend that if the court in its discretion can punish a person for a term of imprisonment less than three years, it must be held to fall within the third category of cases and hence must be reckoned as non-cognizable. I have given reasons as to why this cannot be done in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the decision referred above. I do not find any reason to reconsider the same or to refer the matter to a larger Bench. 2. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) tm Judge