matrix or other appliance by which sound recording for the acoustic presentation of the work are or are intended to be made;” 34. Further, Section 2(hh) of the Copyright Act defines “duplicating equipment” as under: “2[(hh) “duplicating equipment” means any mechanical contrivance or device used or intended to be used for making copies of any work;]” 35. Thus, in so far as civil remedies are concerned, the Plaintiffs can seek the remedies of injunction, damages, etc. A plaintiff can also seek seizure of the duplicating equipment and plates used for creating infringing copies. 36. Apart from the civil remedies under the Copyright Act, infringement of copyright is also a criminal offence under Section 63. It is, in fact, a cognizable offence, as recently upheld by the Supreme Court in M/s Knit Pro International v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [Crl. Appl. No. 807 of 2022, decided on 20th May, 2022]. The relevant extract of the said decision reads as under: “5.3 Thus, for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine. Therefore, the maximum punishment which can be imposed would be three years. Therefore, the learned Magistrate may sentence the accused for a period of three years also. In that view of the matter considering Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C., if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 25 of 51