munotes®

False Entries and False Statements

Chapter One Hundred Thirty-Nine

Syllabus topic 3.5, "Infringement of Copyright"

Pages 570 to 573 of 719

In one line

The Act used to punish faking an entry in the Register and lying to an official. Parliament removed both, in 2023 and in 2026, as part of a general decriminalisation.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: sections 67 and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which punished the making of false entries in the Register of Copyrights and the making of false statements for the purpose of deceiving or influencing any authority or officer, have been omitted, section 68 by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 with effect from 1 August 2024 and section 67 by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 with effect from 15 June 2026.

Why the Act had them

Because the Register is evidence. Section 48 makes it prima facie evidence of the particulars entered, and a certified extract admissible without further proof. A register that can be faked is worse than no register.

Because the Registrar decides on what he is told. Section 45(2) lets him make an entry after such inquiry as he deems fit, and the inquiry depends on the truth of the application.

And because the 1957 Act followed the pattern of its time. Statutes of that era routinely criminalised false statements to officials.

What section 67 said

Before its omission. Any person who

(a) makes or causes to be made a false entry in the Register of Copyrights kept under the Act, or

(b) makes or causes to be made a writing falsely purporting to be a copy of any entry in such register, or

(c) produces or tenders or causes to be produced or tendered as evidence any such entry or writing, knowing the same to be false,

"shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both".

Three acts. Faking the entry, faking a copy of an entry, and using either as evidence knowing it is false.

And the punishment was light. Up to one year, or a fine, or both, with no minimum, which is what made it a candidate for decriminalisation.

What section 68 said

Before its omission. Any person who

(a) with a view to deceiving any authority or officer in the execution of the provisions of the Act, or

(b) with a view to procuring or influencing the doing or omission of anything in relation to the Act or any matter thereunder,

"makes a false statement or representation knowing the same to be false, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both".

Two purposes. Deceiving an authority or officer executing the Act; and procuring or influencing an act or omission under it.

munotes.in570

The rest of this chapter

Module one is free. The rest of this chapter comes with the LL.M. Intellectual Property and Information Technology Semester 2 notes.

You are reading a chapter from a later module. Everything in module one of every subject stays free, and so does every question paper and the syllabus.

Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in

Or notes only: ₹499

Free either way: question papers, the syllabus, and module one of every subject.

The rest of this subject

These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.

Report or request
Done!