CHAPTER XIII OFFENCES

Section 64: Power of police to seize infringing copies

The Copyright Act, 1957

¹[(1) 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 all the plates used for the purpose 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.]

(2) Any person having an interest in any copies of a work ²[, or plates] seized under sub-section (1) may, within fifteen days of such seizure, make an application to the Magistrate for such copies ²[, or plates] being restored to him and the Magistrate, after hearing the applicant and the complainant and making such further inquiry as may be necessary, shall make such order on the application as he may deem fit.

Footnotes in the official text

1.Subs. by Act 65 of 1984, s. 7, for sub-section (1) (w.e.f. 8-10-1984).
2.Ins. by s. 7, ibid. (w.e.f. 8-10-1984).

Questions on this section

1 question in 1 of our papers cite Section 64. Try these from the free papers:

1. Consider the following statements: 1. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector may seize without warrant infringing copies of a work if satisfied that an offence under Section 63 has been, is being or is likely to be committed. 2. Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police may search and seize without warrant in respect of offences under Sections 103 to 105, but must first obtain the opinion of the Registrar on the facts. 3. Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, offences under Sections 103, 104 and 105 are non-cognizable. Which of the statements given above are correct?

Practise questions on Intellectual Property Law