IP-Related Criminal Provisions in India: From the IPC to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Indian IP enforcement is usually framed in civil terms — infringement actions, injunctions, damages. But India has substantial criminal provisions for trademark counterfeiting, copyright piracy, design infringement and related offences. These provisions sit across the Copyright Act 1957 (Sections 63-71), the Trade Marks Act 1999 (Sections 102-115), the Geographical Indications of Goods Act 1999 (Sections 38-44), and increasingly the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — which replaced the Indian Penal Code in July 2024 and carries IP-relevant provisions on cheating, criminal breach of trust, and theft applicable to IP misappropriation contexts.

This guide covers the principal criminal IP provisions, how they are invoked, the police and prosecutorial role, and when criminal proceedings are the right tool alongside or instead of civil action.

Copyright Act criminal provisions

Sections 63-70A of the Copyright Act create offences and prescribe penalties:

• Section 63 — knowingly infringing copyright punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹2 lakh; aggravated offences carry up to 3 years with minimum 6 months
• Section 63A — enhanced penalties for second and subsequent convictions
• Section 63B — knowing use of pirated computer programmes carries similar imprisonment and fine
• Section 64 — police powers to seize infringing copies
• Section 65 — possession of plates for making infringing copies as a separate offence
• Section 65A and 65B — provisions on technological protection measures and rights management information

Copyright offences are cognisable and non-bailable under Section 64 read with the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023). Police can register an FIR and arrest without a court order, distinguishing copyright criminal enforcement from many civil-only IP frameworks.

Criminal IP exists. It is used. It is sometimes the faster route.

Trade Marks Act criminal provisions

Sections 102-115 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 create trade-mark offences:

• Section 102 — falsifying a trade mark (applying false mark to goods or possessing tools for falsification)
• Section 103 — selling goods bearing a falsified trade mark, punishable with imprisonment 6 months to 3 years and fine ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh
• Section 104 — enhanced penalties for second and subsequent convictions
• Section 105 — false representation of trade mark as registered
• Section 113 read with Section 115 — police powers to search and seize counterfeit goods; offences cognisable in specified circumstances

Trade-mark criminal provisions are particularly relevant for counterfeiting matters — counterfeit branded goods sold through markets, marketplace listings, parallel imports of counterfeits, and physical counterfeit-manufacturing operations.

BNS 2023 provisions relevant to IP

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024. Relevant provisions for IP contexts:

• Section 318 — cheating (corresponds to old IPC Section 420) — applicable where counterfeit goods are sold with intent to deceive the purchaser
• Section 316 — criminal breach of trust (corresponds to old IPC Section 405-408) — applicable where employees or vendors misappropriate confidential IP or trade secrets
• Section 303-305 — theft provisions — applicable to physical theft of articles bearing IP (drawings, prototypes, samples)
• Section 336 — forgery — applicable where false documents purport to evidence IP ownership

The BNS provisions operate alongside the IP-specific criminal provisions in the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act. For complex IP-misappropriation matters — particularly involving ex-employees, vendor breaches or coordinated counterfeiting operations — multiple BNS sections may be invoked together.

The police role and FIR registration

For copyright and trade-mark criminal complaints:

1. The complainant files a First Information Report (FIR) at the police station with jurisdiction over the place of offence
2. Police investigation includes search and seizure of counterfeit goods, examination of premises, recording of statements
3. Charge sheet is filed at the Magistrate's court for trial
4. The Trade Marks Registrar or Copyright Office can be involved as expert witness for confirming the IP rights
5. Conviction carries imprisonment and fine; first-time offenders may receive probation in less serious matters

The practical challenge: police prioritisation. IP offences are non-priority for most stations, so cases often languish unless the complainant maintains active engagement and produces evidence-ready material.

Designs Act and GI Act criminal provisions

The Designs Act 2000 creates more limited criminal provisions:

• Section 22 creates civil infringement; criminal provisions are narrower
• Penalties for falsifying registration or selling articles falsely indicating design registration carry fines up to ₹25,000 plus damages

The Geographical Indications Act 1999 creates more substantial criminal provisions:

• Section 39 — falsifying a registered GI carries imprisonment 6 months to 3 years and fine ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh
• Section 40 — selling goods with false indication of GI origin
• Sections 42-44 — police powers and procedural provisions parallel to the Trade Marks Act

When to use criminal vs civil

Strategic considerations:

• Criminal advantages — police search/seizure powers, lower evidentiary threshold for arrest, deterrent effect on defendants, FIR registration creates immediate official record
• Civil advantages — faster injunctive relief through commercial courts, damages and account-of-profits available, broader range of remedies, less dependent on police prioritisation
• Combined approach — many serious counterfeiting matters use both tracks simultaneously, with civil injunction halting ongoing infringement while criminal proceedings build deterrent precedent

The takeaway

India has substantial criminal IP provisions across the Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act, GI Act and now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. For serious counterfeiting, repeat infringement, and ex-employee or vendor IP misappropriation, criminal proceedings can complement or substitute for civil action. The choice between criminal, civil and combined tracks depends on the evidentiary posture, the nature of the infringement, and the strategic objective. IPForte's IP litigation practice handles criminal complaints and the combined civil-criminal strategy across counterfeiting, piracy and trade-secret matters.