Hridhima Biswas Kolkata India
Indian Penal Code 1860
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the official criminal code of India. It is a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. The code was drafted in 1860 on the recommendations of first law commission of India established in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833 under the Chairmanship of Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay.
Chapter XVIII , S. 485 of the IPC ~
Making or possession of any instrument for counterfeiting a property mark .
According to this Section of the IPC , whoever makes or has in His / Her possession any die
, plate or other instrument for the purpose of counterfeiting ( i.e Faking or duplicating ) a property mark, or has in his possession a property mark for the purpose of denoting that any goods belong to a person to whom they do not belong, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. This offence is classified Under Schedule 1 of The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 .
- This is a Non-Cognizable offence , in which a police officer has no authority to arrest the person without warrant for such offences . These Offences are not usually very serious in nature . FIR (i.e First Information Report ) for such crimes cannot be registered without a Magistrate’s permission. Such offences are minimal offences where the injury done to the society is comparatively small. The aggrieved party expected to file a complaint before criminal proceedings starts. The non-cognizable offences contains more private wrong. Examples ~ Forgery, Defamation, Cheating.
“Cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant . However, the Code also contains the Schedule I which refers to all the offences under the Indian Penal Code and puts them into cognizable and non-cognizable categories. Cognizable are serious offences. The seriousness of the offence leads for maximum punishment. Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides that under a cognizable offence the Police Officer has to receive the First Information Report (FIR) relating to the cognizable offence. Example ~ Murder , Rape , Kidnapping, Theft, Criminal Breach of Trust.
- This offence is also a Bailable , Section 2(a) of CrPC defines bailable offences as the offence that has been shown in the First Schedule as bailable or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force . An offence in order to be bailable would have to be an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only.
Rights to be released on bail
As per Section 50 of CrPC Whenever a person is arrested without warrant, it is the duty of the police officer to communicate the full detail of the offence for which the person is arrested. Also, if the offence for which the person is arrested is a bailable one, it is the duty of the police to inform that he is entitled to be released on bail after giving surety.
As per Section 436 of CrPC, whenever a person accused of a bailable offence is arrested without warrant and is prepared to give bail, such person shall be released on bail. The discretion to decide the bail amount is with the Court or with the officer, as the case may be.
- These Cases are Triable by Magistrate First Class . Magistrate in Group - A Category by status with Judicial Power are called Magistrate First Class .
- This is offence is NOT listed under Compoundable offences . Section 320 Of The CrPC looks at compounding Offences . Compoundable offences are those offences where, the complainant (one who has filed the case, i.e. the victim), enter into a compromise, and agrees to have the charges dropped against the accused.
Illicitly making or having possession of any die, plate or other instrument for counterfeiting any public or private property mark .
Imprisonment extended to 3 Years or Fine Or Both .
Superintendent And Remembrancer ... vs Prafulla Kumar on 12 May, 1953
Equivalent citations: AIR 1954 Cal 277
Bench: Mitter, Sen
This is an appeal by the State against the respondent's acquittal of an offence under Section 485, Penal Code.
The prosecution case against the respondent is as follows: Messrs. Gabail Ltd. of London are manufacturers of a drug called Elixir Bromo Valerianate Gabail. The Anglo French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. of Bombay are their agents in India. The trade mark in relation to the said drug consists of the name "Elixir Bromo Valerianate Gabail" printed on a label which is affixed to the bottle containing the drug and also printed on the paper carton in which the bottle is packed and sold. Both the label and the carton contain, in addition, the formula of the drug. The get-up and the design of the label are distinctive and have become associated with the drug of the manufacture of the said Gabail Ltd. The word 'Gabail' is also registered to denote that the drug is the manufacture of Gabail Ltd. The trade mark concerned was registered in India in 1942 and is said to be effective for a period of 15 years.
The said Anglo-French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. of Bombay having received information that a spuri9us drug was being sold with a counterfeit of the said trade mark, moved the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for an investigation into their complaint by the Detective Department of the Calcutta Police. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate ordered such an investigation, and pursuant to search warrants issued by him certain blocks for manufacturing the counterfeit of the said trade mark as well as thick paper cartons with the said counterfeit trade mark printed upon them were recovered from some two printing presses and from the respondent. The respondent was found in possession of 375 such cartons with counterfeit trade marks upon them, marked' Exhibits III and III/1, a block which was marked Ex. II, as also two other blocks marked respectively Exs. IX and X. The last mentioned blocks, namely, Exs. IX and X were in fact made over by the respondent to the police at some stage of the investigation.
First -- That the respondent on or about 16-9-1950 at 39 Tollygunge Road, p.s. Tollygunge, were in possession of counterfeit trade marks to wit carton sheets Ex. III and Ex. III/I for the purpose of denoting that any goods are the manufacture or merchandise of a person whose manufacture or merchandise they were not or they belonged to a person to whom they did not belong and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 485, Penal Codeand within my cognisance. Secondly -- That on or about the same day and place and p.s. were in possession of an instrument for counterfeiting the trade mark of the complainant's company viz. the block Ex. II and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 485, Penal Code and within my cognisance.
Thirdly -- That on or about, the same day and place and p.s. had in your possession an instrument for counterfeiting the trade mark of the complainant's company to wit blocks nos. IX and X and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 485, Penal Code and within my cognizance.