What is IPC Section 483?
IPC Section 483 falls within Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code ("Of Offences Relating to Documents and to Property Marks"), within the sub-group dealing specifically with property marks (Sections 478 to 489). A "property mark," as defined under Section 479, is any mark used for denoting that movable property belongs to a particular person. Section 481 (using a false property mark) and Section 482 (punishment for using a false property mark) address the initial layer of this offence category — the use of a false mark generally — while Section 483 specifically targets the act of counterfeiting a property mark that is already in use by another person, and Section 484 addresses the more serious variant involving marks used by a public servant.
Historically, Section 483 also explicitly covered "trade mark" counterfeiting, but this reference was removed by a 1959 legislative amendment, reflecting the development of specialized trademark legislation (now the Trade Marks Act, 1999) to more comprehensively address trademark-specific offences. Section 483 today thus focuses on property marks more broadly — marks used to indicate ownership of goods — and works alongside related provisions (Sections 486-489) that punish selling goods marked with a counterfeit property mark, or making or possessing instruments for counterfeiting such marks.
Important Update: IPC to BNS Transition
With effect from 1 July 2024, the Indian Penal Code has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for offences committed on or after that date. Sections 483 and 484 IPC have been consolidated into a single Section 347 of the BNS, with sub-section (1) mirroring Section 483's punishment (up to 2 years) and sub-section (2) mirroring Section 484's punishment for marks used by a public servant (up to 3 years plus fine). FIRs registered before 1 July 2024 continue to be tried under IPC 483; incidents after that date are registered under the corresponding BNS provision.
Legal Provision — Text of Section 483 IPC
This section must be read alongside Section 479 (definition of property mark), Section 481 (using a false property mark), Section 482 (punishment for using a false property mark), Section 484 (counterfeiting a mark used by a public servant), and Sections 486-489 (selling goods with counterfeit property marks, and making/possessing instruments for counterfeiting).
Punishment Under Section 483
| Imprisonment | Imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term which may extend to 2 years |
|---|---|
| Fine | Or with fine, or with both imprisonment and fine |
| Nature of Offence | Non-Cognizable — police cannot investigate or arrest without a Magistrate's order/warrant |
| Bailable / Non-Bailable | Bailable — bail is a matter of right |
| Compoundable | Compoundable — by the person to whom loss or injury is caused by such use |
| Triable By | Any Magistrate |
| Related Provisions | Section 479 (definition of property mark), Section 481-482 (using a false property mark), Section 484 (counterfeiting a mark used by a public servant) |
Key Ingredients / Essential Elements
Existence of a genuine property mark
There must be a property mark (as defined under Section 479) that is genuinely used by another person to denote ownership of certain goods.
Counterfeiting of that mark by the accused
The accused must have made a fraudulent imitation or reproduction of the property mark, intending it to pass off as, or be mistaken for, the genuine mark.
The mark must be "used by any other person"
The offence specifically requires that the property mark counterfeited was already in use by someone other than the accused.
The requisite fraudulent element inherent in "counterfeiting"
Counterfeiting inherently involves an element of deception or fraud, distinguishing it from innocent or coincidental similarity in marks.
What Should You Do — For Complainants and For the Accused
If Your Property Mark Has Been Counterfeited
- Since the offence is non-cognizable, file a formal complaint before the Magistrate rather than expecting the police to register a direct FIR.
- Preserve evidence of your genuine property mark and its established use, along with samples or evidence of the counterfeit mark used by the accused.
- Consider whether related civil remedies (such as under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, if a registered trademark is involved) may also be pursued alongside the criminal complaint.
If You Are Accused Under Section 483
- Since the offence is bailable, bail can typically be secured without significant difficulty.
- A key defence is to show that the mark used was not, in fact, a counterfeit of the complainant's genuine property mark, or that there was no fraudulent intention involved.
- Since the offence is compoundable, explore whether the matter can be resolved through settlement with the person affected by the counterfeiting.
Complaint & Bail Process Under Section 483
Filing a Complaint
Being non-cognizable, the affected person must approach the Magistrate directly with a complaint to initiate proceedings.
Magistrate's Examination
The Magistrate examines the complaint and evidence of counterfeiting, including comparison of the genuine and counterfeit marks.
Bail
Being bailable, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right if summoned or arrested in connection with the case.
Trial or Compounding
The case proceeds to trial before the Magistrate, though being compoundable, the affected party may settle the matter at any stage.
Important / Landmark Cases on Section 483
1959 Amendment Removing "Trade Mark" Reference
Prior to 1959, Section 483 explicitly covered the counterfeiting of "trade mark or property mark," but an amendment that year removed the specific reference to "trade mark," reflecting the legislature's move toward addressing trademark counterfeiting through specialized legislation, ultimately leading to the modern framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Element of Fraudulent Intent in Counterfeiting
Courts interpreting the property mark provisions (Sections 481-489) have consistently emphasized that "counterfeiting" inherently requires an element of fraudulent imitation or deception — mere similarity between marks, without evidence of intentional fraudulent copying, does not suffice to establish the offence.