{"id":21559,"date":"2026-04-06T07:55:21","date_gmt":"2026-04-06T07:55:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=21559"},"modified":"2026-04-06T08:02:45","modified_gmt":"2026-04-06T08:02:45","slug":"standard-operating-procedure-sop-investigation-of-offences-under-the-copyright-act-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/standard-operating-procedure-sop-investigation-of-offences-under-the-copyright-act-1957\/","title":{"rendered":"Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) – Investigation of Offences under the Copyright Act, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"
    \n
  1. Introduction<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Copyright protection is a cornerstone of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) law, safeguarding the creative output of authors, artists, musicians, filmmakers, and software developers. Criminal infringement\u2014the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or sale of copyrighted works\u2014not only causes massive economic loss but also stifles innovation.<\/p>\n

    This SOP provides a standardized framework for Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) in India to handle copyright complaints, conduct lawful searches, manage digital evidence, and ensure successful prosecution under the current legal landscape.<\/p>\n

    Core Objectives:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    • Ensure uniform enforcement of the Copyright Act, 1957<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    • Standardize evidentiary procedures in line with the BNSS, 2023<\/strong> and BSA, 2023<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    • Protect the rights of creators while maintaining fair investigation protocols.<\/li>\n
    • Bridge the gap between traditional policing and technical\/digital intellectual property theft.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
        \n
      1. Legal Framework & Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Investigations must be conducted within the intersection of IPR-specific laws and general criminal procedure.<\/p>\n

        A. Primary Statutes<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \n
        • Copyright Act, 1957:<\/strong> The substantive law defining offences and powers.<\/li>\n
        • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):<\/strong> Governs the procedure for investigation, search, and seizure (replacing CrPC).<\/li>\n
        • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):<\/strong> Applied in cases involving fraud, cheating, or criminal conspiracy alongside copyright theft.<\/li>\n
        • Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA):<\/strong> Governs the admissibility of evidence, particularly electronic records (replacing the Indian Evidence Act).<\/li>\n
        • Information Technology Act, 2000:<\/strong> Relevant for server-side seizures<\/em><\/strong> and data decryption<\/em><\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          NOTE: <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

          Server-side seizure<\/em><\/strong> happens when the police take control of the remote computer (the server) that hosts an illegal website or app. Instead of just grabbing a physical laptop, they “lock down” the online storage where all the pirated movies, software, or user data are kept. This prevents the criminal from deleting the evidence from a distance and allows the police to shut down the illegal service immediately.<\/em><\/p>\n

          Data decryption<\/em><\/strong> is the process of unlocking files that have been scrambled or password-protected by criminals to hide their contents. Since pirates often “encrypt” their data to keep it secret, the police use special tools or legal orders under the IT Act to turn those codes back into readable files. This ensures that the evidence, such as stolen source code or illegal movies, can actually be seen and proved in a court of law.<\/em><\/p>\n

          B. Key Penal Provisions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
          \n

          Section<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Description<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Nature of Offence<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

          \n

          Section 63<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Infringement of Copyright or other rights.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Cognizable & Non-Bailable<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

          \n

          Section 63A<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Enhanced penalty for second and subsequent convictions.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Cognizable<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

          \n

          Section 64<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Power of Police to seize infringing copies and plates without warrant.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Procedural Power<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

          \n

          Section 65<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Possession of plates for the purpose of making infringing copies.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Cognizable<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

          \n

          Section 65A\/B<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          *Circumvention of technological measures and protection of Rights Management Info.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

          		\n

          Digital Offence<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

          *Circumvention of technological measures<\/em><\/strong> means breaking or bypassing the digital “locks” that creators put on their work to stop piracy. For example, if a movie is protected by a password or special software that prevents it from being copied, and someone uses a “crack” or a hacking tool to get around that lock, they have committed this offence. It is essentially the act of breaking a digital security system to access or copy protected content.<\/em><\/p>\n

          Protection of Rights Management Information (RMI)<\/em><\/strong> refers to the digital “ID cards” attached to a work, such as watermarks, the author’s name, or terms of use hidden in the file’s data. If a pirate removes this digital info or changes the owner\u2019s name to hide the fact that the work is stolen, they are violating RMI protections. In simple terms, this law punishes people for tampering with the digital labels that prove who truly owns the work.<\/em><\/p>\n

          C. Legal Precedent:<\/strong> In Knit Pro Industries vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2022)<\/em>, the Supreme Court clarified that offences under Section 63 are cognizable. This empowers the police to register an FIR and arrest without a warrant.<\/p>\n

          3. Essential Definitions for Investigators<\/strong><\/p>\n

            \n
          • Work:<\/strong> Includes literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings.<\/li>\n
          • Infringing Copy:<\/strong> Any reproduction made without the license\/consent of the owner. In the case of software, it includes unauthorized “cracked” versions.<\/li>\n
          • Plate:<\/strong> Includes any block, mould, transfer, negative, or duplication equipment (including hard drive “masters” or server images) used for printing or reproducing copies.<\/li>\n
          • Rights Management Information (RMI):<\/strong> Digital watermarks or metadata that identify the work and the author. Removing this is a specific offence under Section 65B.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
              \n
            1. Receipt and Scrutiny of Complaints<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              A criminal investigation begins with the receipt of a written complaint. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) must verify the “Locus Standi” (right to sue) of the complainant.<\/p>\n

              A. Who can file Complaint?<\/strong><\/p>\n

                \n
              • The original author or creator.<\/li>\n
              • The Copyright Owner (if different from the author, e.g., a music label).<\/li>\n
              • An Exclusive Licensee.<\/li>\n
              • An Authorized Representative\/Attorney (must possess a valid Power of Attorney<\/strong> or Letter of Authority<\/strong>).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                B. Essential Documentation for the Complaint<\/strong><\/p>\n

                The I.O. should request the following to build a prima facie case:<\/p>\n

                  \n
                • Proof of Ownership:<\/strong> Copyright registration certificate (though registration is optional in India, it serves as strong evidence).<\/li>\n
                • Chain of Title:<\/strong> If the complainant is not the author, provide the Deed of Assignment<\/strong> or License Agreement<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
                • Comparison Chart:<\/strong> A physical or digital side-by-side comparison of the original work and the alleged infringing copy.<\/li>\n
                • Source Information:<\/strong> Precise location of the infringement (URL, shop address, or warehouse).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                    \n
                  1. Preliminary Verification<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Before registering an FIR, the I.O. should conduct a “Discreet Inquiry” to avoid malicious litigation:<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    • Identity Check:<\/strong> Verify the credentials of the complainant and their firm.<\/li>\n
                    • Market Intelligence:<\/strong> Confirm if the accused is a known habitual offender or a legitimate reseller with a disputed license (the latter may be a civil matter).<\/li>\n
                    • Technical Check:<\/strong> If the infringement is digital, verify the URL\/Website is active.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                        \n
                      1. Registration of FIR<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        Once the I.O. is satisfied that a cognizable offence is made out, an FIR must be registered under Section 173 of BNSS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

                        The FIR must explicitly mention:<\/strong><\/p>\n

                          \n
                        • The specific nature of the work (e.g., “Software Source Code” or “Cinematograph Film”).<\/li>\n
                        • The specific sections (Section 63 for infringement, Section 65 for equipment).<\/li>\n
                        • The “Knowledge” factor: State that the accused is knowingly infringing for commercial gain.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                            \n
                          1. Search and Seizure Protocols<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Under Section 64<\/strong>, any police officer (not below the rank of Sub-Inspector<\/strong>) can seize infringing copies without a warrant if they are satisfied that an offence is being committed.<\/p>\n

                            A. Mandatory Compliance under BNSS<\/strong><\/p>\n

                            The new criminal laws place heavy emphasis on the integrity of the search process:<\/p>\n

                              \n
                            • Independent Witnesses:<\/strong> Search must be conducted in the presence of at least two independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality (Panchas).<\/li>\n
                            • Mandatory Videography:<\/strong> Under Section 105 of BNSS<\/strong>, the search and seizure process must be videographed<\/strong>. This recording must be sent to the Magistrate without delay to prevent claims of “planted evidence.”<\/li>\n
                            • The Seizure Memo. (Panchnama):<\/strong> A detailed list of all items seized, signed by the I.O. and witnesses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                              B. Items Subject to Seizure<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              • Infringing Material:<\/strong> Books, DVDs, merchandise, or unauthorized hardware.<\/li>\n
                              • Reproduction Tools:<\/strong> Printing plates, stencil duplicators, master hard drives, and “cracking” software.<\/li>\n
                              • Financial Evidence:<\/strong> Invoices, ledgers, and shipping labels that prove the scale of the piracy operation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                C. Notification to Registrar<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                As per Section 64(2)<\/strong>, the I.O. must, as soon as practicable, inform the Registrar of Copyrights<\/strong> about the seizure. This is a statutory requirement often missed by investigators, which can be exploited by the defense.<\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. Handling Digital and Cyber Evidence<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  Digital piracy (warez sites, torrents, Telegram bots) requires a specialized forensic approach.<\/p>\n

                                  NOTE: <\/em><\/strong>The services of a forensic expert may be required in such cases.<\/em><\/p>\n

                                  Investigating digital piracy requires a shift from traditional physical evidence to cyber-forensics<\/strong>. Because data on warez sites, torrents, and Telegram bots can be deleted in seconds, the approach must be fast, technical, and legally sound.<\/em><\/p>\n

                                  Here is the specialized forensic approach broken into three main phases:<\/em><\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. Identification and Preservation (The “Digital Snapshot”)<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    The first step is to lock down the evidence before the suspect can hit a “delete” button or wipe a remote server.<\/em><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    • Live Mirroring:<\/em><\/strong> Investigators use specialized tools to “mirror” or copy a website exactly as it appears online. This includes capturing all links, hidden directories, and user forums.<\/em><\/li>\n
                                    • Hash Value Recording:<\/em><\/strong> Every piece of digital evidence must have a Hash Value<\/strong> (a unique digital fingerprint) calculated immediately. If the file is changed by even one bit later on, the hash value will change, making the evidence inadmissible in court.<\/em><\/li>\n
                                    • IP Tracking:<\/em><\/strong> Investigators work with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to trace the IP addresses of the site administrators and bot creators to find their physical location.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                        \n
                                      1. Deep Technical Analysis (The “Digital Trail”)<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        Once the data is preserved, forensic experts look for the “who” and “how” behind the piracy.<\/em><\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        • Log File Analysis:<\/em><\/strong> Experts examine server logs to see who uploaded the pirated content and when. This can often link a “username” to a real-world IP address or email.<\/em><\/li>\n
                                        • Source Code Inspection:<\/em><\/strong> For “cracked” software or apps, forensics can identify the specific tools used to bypass security, which helps prove that the circumvention was intentional.<\/em><\/li>\n
                                        • Financial Forensics:<\/em><\/strong> Piracy is usually for profit. Investigators track “Follow the Money” trails through crypto-wallets, PayPal accounts, or advertisement revenue linked to the warez site to prove commercial intent.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                            \n
                                          1. Legal Authentication (The “Courtroom Bridge”)<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                            Technical data is useless unless it follows the law (specifically Section 63 of the BSA, 2023<\/strong> in India).<\/em><\/p>\n

                                              \n
                                            • Chain of Custody:<\/em><\/strong> Every person who touched the digital evidence must be logged. This proves the data wasn’t tampered with from the moment it was seized until it reached the judge.<\/em><\/li>\n
                                            • Certificate of Authenticity:<\/em><\/strong> A formal certificate must be attached to all digital printouts or screenshots. This confirms that the computer system used to collect the evidence was working properly and the data is a true representation of the original crime scene.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                              A. The “Hash Value” Rule<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                              When seizing computers, servers, or mobile devices, the I.O. must ensure the “Hash Value” (digital fingerprint) of the storage media is calculated immediately at the scene. This ensures the data was not altered after seizure.<\/p>\n

                                              B. Admissibility under BSA, 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                              Any digital evidence (screenshots, server logs, WhatsApp chats) is only admissible if accompanied by a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)<\/strong> (formerly Section 65B of the Evidence Act).<\/p>\n

                                                \n
                                              • This certificate must be signed by a person in a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                                C. Network Forensics<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                  \n
                                                • IP Logs:<\/strong> Request subscriber details from ISPs (Internet Service Providers).<\/li>\n
                                                • Payment Gateways:<\/strong> Track the flow of money from subscribers to the pirate site owners to establish “commercial intent.”<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                                    \n
                                                  1. Examination of Witnesses<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                    Statements should be recorded under Section 180 of BNSS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

                                                      \n
                                                    • Expert Witnesses:<\/strong> Statements from technical experts or “Authorized Examiners” who can certify that the seized goods are not originals.<\/li>\n
                                                    • Market Witnesses:<\/strong> Customers who were misled into buying pirated goods.<\/li>\n
                                                    • The “Scene of Crime” Unit:<\/strong> In complex cases, the forensic team should record their findings regarding the setup used for mass duplication.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                                        \n
                                                      1. Arrest Procedure<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                        While the offence is non-bailable, arrest is not mandatory in every case. The I.O. must follow the guidelines in Section 35 of BNSS<\/strong> (Arrest of Persons).<\/p>\n

                                                        Arrest is justified if:<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                          \n
                                                        • The accused is a repeat offender (Section 63A).<\/li>\n
                                                        • There is a risk of the accused deleting remote cloud servers or destroying evidence.<\/li>\n
                                                        • The scale of infringement suggests an organized crime syndicate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                                            \n
                                                          1. Final Report (Charge Sheet)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                            Upon completion of the investigation, a Final Report must be filed under Section 193 of BNSS<\/strong> before the Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate, First Class.<\/p>\n

                                                            The Charge Sheet Dossier must include:<\/p>\n

                                                              \n
                                                            • Ownership Documentation:<\/strong> Validating the complainant\u2019s rights.<\/li>\n
                                                            • Expert Opinion\/Forensic Report:<\/strong> Confirming the items are “infringing copies.”<\/li>\n
                                                            • BSA Certificate:<\/strong> For all digital evidence (Under Section 63 BSA).<\/li>\n
                                                            • Videography Records:<\/strong> The digital media (CD\/Pen drive) containing the search video, supported by a certificate of integrity.<\/li>\n
                                                            • Chain of Custody Log:<\/strong> Proving the seized items remained in the Malkhana (evidence locker) untouched until production in court.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                                                \n
                                                              1. Best Practices and Checklists<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
                                                                \n

                                                                Phase<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

                                                                		\n

                                                                Action Item<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

                                                                \n

                                                                Pre-Search<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

                                                                		\n

                                                                Ensure the I.O. is at least a Sub-Inspector<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

                                                                \n

                                                                During Search<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

                                                                		\n

                                                                Use a mobile device to record the entire entry and seizure process.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

                                                                \n

                                                                Post-Seizure<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

                                                                		\n

                                                                Send notification to the Registrar of Copyrights, New Delhi.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

                                                                \n

                                                                Evidence<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

                                                                		\n

                                                                Ensure “Hash Values” are recorded for all digital devices.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

                                                                \n

                                                                Ethics<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

                                                                		\n

                                                                Avoid seizing personal devices of employees unless directly used for the crime.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                                                  \n
                                                                1. Conclusion<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                  Copyright investigation in the 21st century is as much about data as it is about physical goods. By adhering to this SOP, investigating officers ensure that they satisfy the rigorous standards of the BNSS<\/strong> and BSA<\/strong>, thereby minimizing the chances of procedural acquittals. Effective enforcement acts as a deterrent, protecting India\u2019s creative economy and ensuring that “originality” remains rewarded by law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                                                  Introduction Copyright protection is a cornerstone of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) law, safeguarding the creative output of authors, artists, musicians, filmmakers, and software developers. Criminal infringement\u2014the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or sale of copyrighted works\u2014not only causes massive economic loss but also stifles innovation. This SOP provides a standardized framework for Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) in<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":21558,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-21559","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-intellectual-property","8":"tag-intellectual-property","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/SOP-OF-COPYRIGHT-CASE-INVESTIGATION.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21559"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21559\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21590,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21559\/revisions\/21590"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21558"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}