Non-IPC Offence Punishable "Up To Three Years" Non-Bailable Because It Is Possible To Impose Sentence of Exact Three Years For Such Offences:Bombay High Court
TheBombay High Court has reiterated that non-IPC offenses punishable with "up to three years" and , will be categorised as cognisable and non-bailable.In a judgment passed last month, while hearing a case under the Copyright Act, 1957, Trademarks Act, 1999 and other IPC sections, Justice Sarang Kotwal held, "Bare reading of this Part II of the Schedule -I of CrPC shows that, if...
TheBombay High Court has reiterated that non-IPC offenses punishable with "up to three years" and , will be categorised as cognisable and non-bailable.
In a judgment passed last month, while hearing a case under the Copyright Act, 1957, Trademarks Act, 1999 and other IPC sections, Justice Sarang Kotwal held,
"Bare reading of this Part II of the Schedule -I of CrPC shows that, if the offences in the other laws 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 was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by one Piyush Ranipa, who apprehended arrest in a case pertaining mainly to copyright infringement and faking of trademark of the complainant company – Jain Irrigation System. Ranipa was accused of manufacturing irrigation pipes, transporting and selling them under the trademark of the complainant company unauthorizedly.
Advocate Mandar Soman, appearing for Ranipa, argued that a Magistrate had already granted bail to his co-accused on the ground that section 418 IPC (cheating with knowledge of wrongful loss to person he ought to protect) holding that section as bailable, he argued that the main offences under sections 63 of the Copyright Act and 103 of the Trademarks Act were bailable as well.
Justice Kotwal observed that the Magistrate had not considered the application of the Copyright Act and Trademarks act sections – whether the sections were bailable or not – while granting bail to Ranipa's co-accused. The court, therefore, appointed an amicus-curiae in the case to assist the court on this point.
Amicus Aniket Nikam and Prosecutor Ajay Patil, relied on several judgments to show that the issue at hand was already settled in the past and it was "no more res-integra and different courts including a Division bench of this court have held that the offences in which punishment can extend upto 3 years are non-bailable offences."
The judgments by single judges of the Bombay High Court which were discussed were Ramrao Marotrao Budruk Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another reported in 1994 SCC online Bom
407 on the issue of section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act and State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri. Suresh Ganpatrao Kenjale reported in 1995 CriLJ 2478 pertaining to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The division bench judgment of the Bombay HC relied upon by the Amicus and the Prosecutor was Mahesh Shivram Puthran V. The Commissioner of Police, Thane, Dist. Thane and others reported in 2011 SCC online Bom 389, where the court was considering whether offences under sections 43 and 52 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act were cognisable or non-cognisable.