Justice A. Badharudeen referred to Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the BIS Act and held:

“In both sections 11 and 12, the legislature vigilantly incorporated the word 'used' and the legislature in its wisdom never intended the word 'possess' to fasten criminal culpability on mere possession of a spurious ISI mark…On scanning the statutory words in Sections 11 and 12, read with Section 33 of the BIS Act, the 'use' of a spurious ISI mark is punishable under the said provisions and mere possession of an object capable of affixing such a mark, without any evidence to establish its use in the manufacture of goods, does not attract the penal provisions of Sections 11 and 12, read with Section 33 of the BIS Act.”

Section 11 deals with prohibition of improper use of Standard Mark. Section 12 prohibits use of certain names that resembles the name of the Bureau to deceive the public. Section 13 lays down the penalty for violating Sections 11 and 12.

The Court was considering an appeal preferred by the BIS challenging a Magistrate judgment that acquitted respondents 1 to 5 of the offences under Sections 11, 12 and 33 BIS Act.

The allegation was that when the Joint Directors and officers of the BIS inspected the factory of respondent 1 firm (M/s. Mars Veneers and Boards), they found it to possess one roller having a spurious ISI mark without any valid licence to hold such a mark. It is further alleged that a spurious ISI mark was there on the factory wall as well. A complaint was filed by the BIS against the firm as well as its partners.

The Magistrate, after trial, found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused used a trademark or ISI mark on any articles so as to attract the offences alleged. It further found that the prosecution failed to produce any finished product fixed with the spurious ISI mark found in the roller or the wall. The Magistrate also found that the seizure of the roller was also not properly proved beyond reasonable doubt to show that it was in working condition for using the spurious mark. It thus acquitted the accused.

BIS filed appeal and contended that mere possession of a spurious mark would attract the offences alleged.

After hearing the parties, the Court examined the relevant provisions and concurred with the Magistrate's court finding since no manufactured goods bearing a fake ISI mark were detected, seized or produced before the Magistrate.

Since use could not be proved, the Court was of the view that the offences are not attracted. It thus dismissed the appeal and confirmed the finding of acquittal.

Counsel for the appellant: Manoj Ramaswamy

Counsel for the respondents: K. Mohanakannan, A.R. Pravitha, M.A. Shihab – Public Prosecutor