The statute says “use”, not “possess”: Fake ISI Mark Possession Not An Offence Without Proof Of Use, the Kerala High Court has held, since Sections 11 and 12 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 punish the use of a mark and not its mere possession.
Ernakulam: An appeal by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) against the acquittal of a Kannur-based firm and its partners has been dismissed by the Kerala High Court. Mere possession of an object capable of applying a spurious ISI mark does not attract Sections 11 and 12, read with Section 33, of the 1986 Act unless its use is proved, the Court held [Bureau of Indian Standards v. M/s Mars Veneers and Boards and Others].
Sitting as a single judge, Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment on October 14, 2026 in Crl. Appeal No. 1211 of 2013. It confirms the January 1, 2010 judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba, in C.C. No. 923 of 2006, which had acquitted all the accused.
Two verbs in two sections
The word “use” appears in both Sections 11 and 12, Justice Badharudeen noted, and the word “possess” appears in neither. In the Court’s view, the legislature did not intend mere possession to carry criminal liability.
the legislature “never intended the word ‘possess’ to fasten criminal culpability on mere possession.”
No manufactured goods bearing a spurious ISI mark were detected, seized or produced, the Court noted. The prosecution’s case rested only on the roller and the mark on the wall. Possessing an object capable of affixing such a mark, without evidence that it was used in manufacturing goods, does not attract the penal provisions of Sections 11 and 12, read with Section 33, the Court held.
“the use of a spurious ISI mark is punishable under the said provisions.”
The High Court agreed with the trial court that the prosecution had failed to prove the use of the mark. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal of all the accused confirmed.
A roller, a painted wall and a complaint of 2006
BIS officials inspected the factory of M/s Mars Veneers and Boards, Kannur. BIS alleged that they found a roller bearing a spurious ISI mark, that the firm held no valid BIS licence to use the mark, and that a similar mark was painted on a factory wall. It filed a complaint under Sections 11(1) and 12(b), read with Section 33, of the 1986 Act against the firm and its partners, C.K. Harris, P. Basheer, C. Ali Muhammed and C.K. Musthafa.
The prosecution examined three witnesses, marked six documents and produced the seized roller as a material object. The Magistrate acquitted every accused. He found that the prosecution had not proved the use of the mark on any article, had not produced any finished product bearing it, and had not proved that the roller was in working condition and capable of applying the mark. BIS then appealed to the High Court.
What Sections 11, 12 and 33 provide
Using the Standard Mark or a colourable imitation of it in relation to an article or process, or in a trade mark or design, is barred by Section 11 except under a licence. Section 12 bars the use, without the Bureau’s prior permission, of names resembling its own or of marks containing the expression “Indian Standard” or its abbreviation. Section 33 prescribes imprisonment of up to one year, a fine of up to Rs. 50,000, or both, and allows the trying court to direct forfeiture of the property involved to the Bureau.
The Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, which came into force on October 12, 2017, has repealed the 1986 Act. Its Section 43 saves proceedings begun under the older law, which is why the complaint, filed in 2006, was tested against the 1986 provisions.
The two positions
Mere possession of a spurious ISI mark is enough to attract Sections 11 and 12, BIS argued, and the Magistrate erred in insisting on proof of use. The accused countered that the two provisions penalise use, and that possession of a mark or of material for affixing it does not attract them.
The offence is what the section says
A basic rule of penal statutes is restated: a court will not stretch the words of a penal provision to reach conduct the legislature chose not to name. Where the law punishes “use”, the prosecution must prove use, and the presence of a tool or mark on the premises does not do that work for it.
The ruling also shows the weight an appellate court gives to an acquittal that rests on a gap in the evidence. With no finished goods bearing the mark and no proof that the roller could apply it, the Court saw no reason to disturb the Magistrate’s finding.
Case Title: Bureau of Indian Standards v. M/s Mars Veneers and Boards and Others [Crl. Appeal No. 1211 of 2013]
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
Date of Judgment: October 14, 2026
Appearances: Adv. Manoj Ramaswamy for the appellant (BIS); Adv. K. Mohanakannan and Adv. A.R. Pravitha for accused 1 to 5; Public Prosecutor M.A. Shihab for the State