Introduction
In the case of Piyush Subhasbhai Ranipa v. State of Maharashtra the Bombay High Court was faced with the question: whether the offenses under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 103 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 are bailable or non bailable?
Factual background
The plea of anticipatory bail was brought by the applicant before the Bombay High Court seeking anticipatory bail application, in a case where the complainant alleged that Mr. Piyush Subhasbhai Ranipa was manufacturing fake and substandard goods that were being transported and sold under the brand name of the complainant company. The informant, Zonal Manager of the Jain Irrigation System received a complaint that sub-standard goods were being sold in the market in the name of their company. After making inquiries and physically inspecting the goods the informant found out that some goods were bearing the mark 'Jain HDPE' bearing the forged stamp of Certificate of Manufacturing License. The informant filed an F.I.R and the applicant was charged under Sections 418, 465, 482, 483, 485, 486, 488 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 103 of Trade Marks Act, 1999. Therefore, the investigation was carried out and goods were seized.
Issue
- Whether Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 103 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 are bailable or non-bailable?
- Whether the Applicant is liable to get the anticipatory bail?
Applicant's Argument
Applicant Counsel argued that whether the offense in which a sentence of imprisonment up to three years can be imposed falls within the third category of Part II of Schedule I of Cr.P.c. or it falls within the second category of Part II1.
Applicant's Counsel argued that the schedule of Cr.P.c. does refer to other laws and it can be used to decide whether the offenses under statutes other than the Indian Penal Code are bailable or non bailable. The counsel submitted the schedule of Cr.P.c. can be applied to other Acts, keeping in mind the object and reasons of that particular Act.
The counsel relied on the case of Anant s/o. Tukaram Teke & Ors. V. The State of Maharashtra & Anr2, arguing that sub-section 4 of Section 115 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 is mandatory and prohibits investigation by any officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Respondent's Argument
Respondent's Counsels argued that the issue is no more res Integra.
Respondent's counsel relied on the cases of Ramrao Marotrao Budruk v. The State of Maharashtra and another3, State of Maharashtra v. Shri. Suresh Ganpatrao Kenjale4, Mahesh Shivram Puthran v. The Commissioner of Police Thane, Dist. Thane and others5, which have held that the offenses in which punishment can extend to 3 years are non-bailable.
Judgment
The court held that bare reading of Part II of the schedule – I of Cr.p.c6 shows that if the offenses in the other laws are punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards then the offenses are cognizable and non bailable. Concerning the applicant's counsel contention that to take the cognizance of the offense under subsection 4 of Section 115 the opinion of the registrar is mandatory and it was not obtained in this case, the court held that in the present case, there was no question of seeking the opinion of the Registrar for Trademarks because in present case the accused had not used a mark where there was a possibility of similarity but they had gone ahead and used the very same trademark with the very same number under which the trademark was registered in favor of the informant's company. The court further clarified that it was not a result of a fresh search and seizure as at the time of registration of F.I.R. the goods in question were already taken in custody. The court observed that infringement of Copyright Act under section 63 of the Act is a matter of investigation but the infringement of the Trade Marks Act under Section 103 of the Act by the applicant is a matter of fact because the accused have falsely used the informant's trademark and have attempted to sell those products; hence, accused is also charged under Section 420 r/w. 511 of the IPC.
Concerning anticipatory bail, the court relying upon the statement of the co-accused held that it clearly demonstrates that there was the active involvement of the present application as the goods were being manufactured at his unit, thus the custodial interrogation is necessary and hence the relief of anticipatory bail is not granted. The application was rejected.
Analysis
By this judgment, the judiciary has created a precedent in protecting the intellectual property rights of the owners by protecting their interests. The advocates of decriminalization could be alarmed by this judgment because it privileges the owners of the intellectual property rights so that they can protect and enforce their rights. India, being a member of the World Trade Organization and a signatory of the TRIPS agreement, is required to protect intellectual property rights from willful violation. The decriminalization of intellectual property rights violations could hamper India's reputation in the world regarding enforcement and protection of intellectual property rights. This judgment by the Bombay High Court provides relief to the intellectual property owners and creates a sense of trust that the willful violations of Intellectual property rights in India will not be tolerated. However, in the case of Amarnath Vyas v. the State of A.P.7, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that offenses punishable for three years and upwards and the offenses punishable with the term which may extend the three years don't fall in the same categories. Therefore, the Andhra Pradesh High court held that Section 63 of the Copyright Act is non cognizable and bailable.
Similarly, Delhi High Court in the case of State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Naresh Kumar Garg8 held that offenses under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is bailable. The differing points of views from different high courts in India impose a challenge in deciding the right jurisprudence concerning Intellectual property rights in India. Perhaps now is the right time for the Supreme Court to take charge and pronounce on these conflicting viewpoints with finality.
Footnotes
1. http://devgan.in/crpc/chapter_38.php
2. Criminal Application NO.1471 of 2013
3. 1994 SCC Online Bom407
4. 1995 CriLJ 2478
5. 2011 SCC Online Bom 389
6. http://devgan.in/crpc/chapter_38.php
7. 2006 SCC Online AP 1194
8. 2013 SCC Online 1142
Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa v. The State Of Maharashtra
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
