Offences under laws other than IPC punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more are cognizable, non-bailable: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that offences under laws other than Indian Penal Code (IPC) which are punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more are cognizable and non-bailable (Piyush Ranipa v. State of Maharashtra). .In other words, offences under laws other than IPC which has a maximum punishment of less than 3 years will only be non-cognizable and bailable. .The judgment was rendered by Justice Sarang V Kotwal in a case relating to grant of anticipatory bail for offences under intellectual property laws and IPC. .The Court was considering the question of maintainability of the anticipatory bail application of one Piyush Ranipa, accused of infringement of offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1967 and Section 103 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and IPC. Both the provisions are punishable with a maximum imprisonment of upto 3 years. .The First information Report (FIR) against Ranipa was registered after the Zonal Manager of a company, Jain Irrigation Systems received complaints that substandard goods were being sold in the market under the name of their company. Through secret information, it was discovered that the accused’s truck was carrying goods bearing the same mark of manufacturing license as the complainant’s company..Besides, offences under Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, Ranipa was charged for offences under Sections 418 (cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect) , 465 (forgery), 482 (using false property mark), 485 (making or possession of any instrument for counterfeiting a property mark) and 486 (selling goods marked with a counterfeit property mark) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .Before deciding as to whether anticipatory bail can be granted or not, the Court was required to decide on the maintainability of the application. Hence it first considered the larger issue as to whether offences punishable upto three years were bailable or non bailable. .The legal question which the Court framed was whether offences in which sentence of imprisonment upto three years can be imposed, fall within second or third category of Part II of Schedule I of Code of Criminal Procedure. .Advocate Mandar Soman appearing for the applicant submitted that the schedule in CrPC applies to laws other than IPC but the same can be done taking into consideriation the object and reasons of such an Act. He added that the scheme of Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act showed that the offences are bailable..Amicus Curiae Aniket Nikam submitted that the present issue has already been settled and different courts including a Division Bench of Bombay High Court have held that the offences in which punishment was upto 3 years, are non-bailable.On a bare perusal of the Part II of the Schedule I of CrPC, the Court concluded that,.The Court after examining Part II of the Schedule I of CrPC held that if the offences in laws other than IPC are punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards then the offences are cognizable and non bailable. ."Wherever it is possible to impose the punishment extending to three years, this category would apply, because in such offences it is possible to impose sentence of exact three years. In such cases offences would be non-bailable," the Court ruled..The Court, therefore, concluded that the anticipatory bail plea was maintainable on the grounds that offences under section 63 of the Copyright Act and section 103 of Trade Marks Act are non bailable in nature.Having decided this question, the Court proceeded to decide on the facts of the case..Additional Public Prosecutor made following submissions on the facts of the case:That Ranipa had not used a similar trademark but the same trademark with the same number.He attempted to sell their own products in the market whose standard was questionable and the consumers were led to believe it was the informant’s company..The Court noted Ranipa did not claim to have any certificate registered under the the Copyright Act mentioning the informant’s product and trademark registration number. The Court also observed that since the accused had used the very same trademark with the very same number, there was no question of seeking opinion of the Registrar of Trademarks on whether it was the case of similarity. .The Court stated that the copyright infringement was a matter of investigation and prima facie there appeared to be an infringement of trademark by Ranipa.."The accused (Ranipa) has falsely applied the informant’s trademark to their own products and have attempted to sell those products. Thus, the act of the accused also amounts to offence under section 420 r/w. 511 of the IPC. By their act, the public were induced or an attempt was made to induce the public to buy these products under the impression that they were manufactured by the informant’s company," the Court said..It, therefore, deemed that custodial interrogation would be necessary considering the statement of the co-accused which showed active involvement of Ranipa and hence refused to grant anticipatory bail. .[Read Order]