Case Analysis: Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 350

Facts of the Case: The case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Mr. Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa before the Bombay High Court. The complainant alleged that Mr. Ranipa was producing fraudulent and subpar products that were being transported and sold under the brand name of the complainant company, Jain Irrigation Systems. The informant, who is the Zonal Manager at Jain Irrigation Systems, received a complaint that inferior products were being marketed under their brand name.

During the inspection of the goods, the informant discovered that some products bore the mark “Jain HDPE” and had a counterfeit Certificate of Manufacturing License stamp. Subsequently, an F.I.R. was filed, and Mr. Ranipa was charged with violating several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 418, 465, 482, 483, 485, 486, and 488, read with Section 34. Additionally, he was charged under Section 63 of the Copyright Act of 1957 and Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999. As a result, an investigation was conducted, and the goods were confiscated.

Legal Issue: The court needed to determine whether the offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act are cognizable and non-bailable.

Contentions by Both Parties: The applicant argued that Schedule I of the CrPC should be applied to these Acts in light of their objectives and that, considering the structure of these Acts, the offences should be deemed bailable. On the other hand, the State of Maharashtra contended that the matter had already been resolved in various courts, including a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The State’s counsel relied on the case of Ramrao Marotrao Budruk v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, which held that offences with a punishment extending to three years are non-bailable.

Judgment Analysis: The Bombay High Court’s ruling underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in India. The Court’s decision reassures intellectual property owners that blatant violations of their rights will not be tolerated.

The Court observed that the accused had falsely used the complainant’s trademark and attempted to sell the products under that trademark. While the infringement of the Copyright Act under Section 63 was considered a matter for investigation, the infringement of the Trade Marks Act under Section 103 was deemed a matter of fact. Consequently, the accused was also charged under Section 420, read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court noted that although a term of exactly three years may be imposed for offences with a maximum penalty of three years, such offences would not be considered bailable. The Court concluded that violations under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act are non-bailable. Accordingly, the court denied the applicant’s request for anticipatory bail under Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act.

Impact of the Judgment: This judgment sets a precedent for protecting intellectual property rights in India. By upholding the interests of intellectual property owners, the judiciary has reinforced the importance of these rights. The ruling may be concerning to advocates of decriminalization, as it provides special protection to intellectual property owners to defend and enforce their rights. As a signatory to the TRIPS agreement and a member of the World Trade Organization, India is obligated to prevent the willful violation of intellectual property rights.