Authority for Police to Act Suo Motu Under Section 64
The authority for police to act suo motu (on their own) is limited by Section 64(1). An officer, who must be not below the rank of Sub-Inspector (SI), can seize infringing copies without a warrant if satisfied an offence under Section 63 is occurring. For example, an SI can raid a CD piracy den immediately, but an Assistant SI cannot. In essence, an ASI can help build the case, but the actual raid and seizure of infringing material requires the presence and authorization of an officer with the rank of SI or higher.
In the absence of an SI, the ASI must elevate the matter to an officer of the requisite rank or obtain a judicial warrant to legally seize the infringing copies. They cannot use the suo motu seizure power granted by Section 64.
Section 64(1) of The Copyright Act, 1957
The text of the section states:
Any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if he is satisfied that an offence under section 63 in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, seize without warrant, all copies of the work, and the 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.
Section 64(2) of The Copyright Act, 1957
Any person interested in property seized under Section 64(1) can apply to the Magistrate for restoration within fifteen days. Providing judicial review, the Magistrate must hear both the applicant and the copyright owner, make further necessary inquiry, and then pass an order regarding the restoration of the seized infringing copies or plates.
Analysis of Police Ranks and Statutory Requirement
In the hierarchy of the Indian Police Service (State Police), the ranks are typically as follows:
| Rank | Abbreviation | Relative Position |
|---|---|---|
| Sub-Inspector | SI | Minimum Rank Prescribed by Law |
| Assistant Sub-Inspector | ASI | One Rank Below the Statutory Minimum |
| Head Constable | HC | |
| Constable | PC |
Since the law specifies “not below the rank of a sub-inspector (SI),” an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) falls short of the statutory requirement. Therefore, an ASI cannot legally seize infringing copies without a warrant under the powers granted by Section 64 of the Act.
Investigation and Cognizable Offence
While an ASI is an investigating officer under the general provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for a cognizable offence, the specific, powerful provision in the Copyright Act for search and seizure without a warrant has a higher rank restriction.
Cognizability and General Investigation
Cognizable Offence: This means a police officer can register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 173(1) of the BNSS and begin an investigation without a Magistrate’s order.
ASI’s General Power: Under Section 173 of the BNSS, an officer-in-charge of a police station (or a superior officer) retains the power to generally investigate a cognizable case. Thus, the general practice of delegating the main investigation of the copyright case to an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) or Sub-Inspector (SI) remains legally sound, subject to the specific restrictions on warrantless seizure in Section 64 of the Copyright Act.
The Statutory Limitation
However, the specific power to seize property without a search warrant, which is crucial for tackling piracy, is restricted by the special law (the Copyright Act) to an officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector or above. The special provision of Section 64 overrides the general power to investigate insofar as the specific power of seizure without a warrant is concerned.
Case Law Precedent
The authority of the police to act under the Copyright Act hinges entirely on the interpretation of Section 63 and Section 64:
- The Supreme Court, in the seminal judgment of Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022) SC, resolved a long-standing judicial conflict by ruling that the offence of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. This classification, based on the maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment, is crucial as it empowers the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) and initiate a full criminal investigation.
- Relevance to ASI: While this ruling confirms the nature of the offence and the general power of police to investigate, it does not alter the minimum rank requirement for the special power of seizure under Section 64. The court did not strike down the phrase “not below the rank of a sub-inspector.” The SI remains the statutory floor for executing a warrantless seizure.
Conclusion
The role of an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in a Copyright Act case is constrained by the statutory minimum rank requirement.
While the offence under Section 63 is cognizable, allowing an ASI to participate in the general investigation (such as registering the FIR and recording witness statements) under the general provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the critical and extraordinary power of warrantless search and seizure is legally reserved for a higher rank.
Specifically, the power to conduct a raid and seize infringing material without obtaining a search warrant from a Magistrate is legally barred to an ASI by virtue of Section 64(1) of the Copyright Act. This section explicitly mandates that the officer must be “not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector (SI).” Consequently, only an SI or a higher-ranking officer may lawfully exercise this specific power in a copyright infringement case.
