Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 Section 347: Counterfeiting a Property Mark – Legal Meaning & Punishment

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaces the Indian Penal Code, includes robust provisions to address offenses related to the protection of property and commercial integrity. One such provision is Section 347, which criminalizes the act of counterfeiting property marks. This article offers a detailed overview of BNS Section 347 Counterfeiting a Property Mark, its legal implications, relevant case laws, and practical considerations for individuals and businesses.

What is a BNS Section 347 Counterfeiting a Property Mark?

A property mark is a symbol, stamp, or sign used by an individual or organization to denote ownership of moveable property. It is typically applied to goods in transit, commercial merchandise, tools, machinery, or packages to indicate legal ownership and to prevent misappropriation.

For example, manufacturers may imprint property marks on their products to ensure brand authenticity and traceability in trade channels.

Meaning of Counterfeiting a Property Mark

The act of counterfeiting a property mark involves creating, imitating, or using a false property mark with the intention to deceive or defraud. This may include forging a known mark, affixing a false mark to goods, or passing off counterfeit goods as those belonging to a legitimate owner.

Under BNS Section 347, such activities constitute a criminal offense.

Text and Interpretation of BNS Section 347 Counterfeiting a Property Mark

Section 347 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 penalizes:

“Whoever counterfeits any property mark used by any person to denote that property belongs to such person, or knowingly uses a counterfeit property mark, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Key Elements:

• Actus Reus: The act of counterfeiting or using a counterfeit mark.
• Mens Rea: Knowledge or intention to deceive or defraud.
• Ownership: The original mark must denote lawful ownership by another.

Punishment under Section 347

• Imprisonment: Up to 2 years.
• Fine: As determined by the court.
• Or both: Imprisonment and fine may be imposed concurrently.

The offense under Section 347 is cognizable and bailable.

Short Note on BNS Section 347 Counterfeiting a Property Mark

Case Laws Interpreting BNS Section 347 Counterfeiting a Property Mark

a. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Gupta (2021)

Facts: The accused was apprehended while distributing counterfeit branded electronic goods labeled with a well-known company’s mark.

Held: The court emphasized that counterfeiting not only causes economic harm but also undermines public confidence in commerce.

b. K.K. Industries v. State of Gujarat (2018)

Facts: Duplicate packaging materials with forged property marks were used to market substandard edible oils.

Held: The Gujarat High Court ruled that such activities fall squarely under counterfeiting and merit criminal prosecution under applicable provisions.

c. Rajeev Traders v. Union of India (2019)

Facts: The accused misused a reputed exporter’s mark on grain shipments to defraud buyers.

Held: The court reaffirmed the importance of intent and upheld that use of forged property marks constitutes criminal deceit.

Difference Between Trademark Infringement and Property Mark Counterfeiting

While trademark infringement typically falls under civil or commercial laws, counterfeiting a property mark under BNS Section 347 is a criminal offense. The key difference lies in the intent to commit fraud and the nature of enforcement (civil vs. criminal).

Practical Scenarios Where Section 347 May Apply

• Use of fake logos on counterfeit consumer electronics.
• Duplicate packaging in the pharmaceutical or FMCG sectors.
• Fake stamps or seals on courier and logistics items.
• Misuse of a competitor’s brand marks to deceive consumers.

Defenses Available to the Accused

A person accused under Section 347 may raise the following defenses:

• Lack of knowledge that the mark was counterfeit.
• No intent to deceive or defraud.
• Authorized use of the mark (with proper licensing or permission).

However, the burden may shift to the accused to prove the absence of fraudulent intention.

Business Compliance and Legal Caution

To avoid criminal liability under Section 347:

• Conduct regular audits of branding and packaging.
• Educate employees on IP and property mark compliance.
• Avoid sourcing materials from unauthorized vendors.
• Report counterfeit activity to appropriate enforcement agencies.

Conclusion

BNS Section 347 Counterfeiting a Property Mark plays a vital role in protecting property rights, commercial integrity, and consumer trust in the Indian economy. By criminalizing the act of forging property marks, this provision upholds fair trade practices and ensures accountability for fraudulent conduct.

Businesses must be vigilant, and individuals must exercise due diligence to avoid involvement in any activity that may fall under the scope of this offense.

Disclaimer

This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. For legal assistance or detailed case-specific guidance, please consult a qualified legal professional.