Section 124 of the Patents Act, 1970
Offences by companies
Section 124 decides who inside a company is answerable when the company commits an offence under the Patents Act.
Official legal text
The verbatim statutory text of this provision is reproduced from the official source and checked by our legal reviewer before it is published here. Until that check is complete for this page, read the exact wording directly from the official source linked below — it is the only version that governs.
Nothing here replaces the statute. The official wording of the provision, together with any Gazette notification that applies to it, governs. This page only explains that material in ordinary language.
What this section says, in plain language
A company is a legal person, but it acts through human beings. If only the company could be punished, the individuals who took the decision would never answer for it. Section 124 addresses this. Where an offence under the Act is committed by a company, every person who at the time was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business is deemed guilty of the offence along with the company, and can be proceeded against and punished.
That deeming is balanced by a defence. A person is not liable if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent it. The burden is on the individual, which is why written policies, documented approvals and evidence that a system was actually followed matter so much. A compliance manual that nobody reads is weak evidence; a filing calendar with sign-offs, and a rule that no foreign filing goes out without a clearance note, is strong evidence.
A second limb reaches further up. Where an offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, or to be attributable to any neglect on his part, that officer is also deemed guilty. Here the prosecution must show consent, connivance or neglect; there is no automatic deeming. The section explains that a company includes a firm or other association of individuals, and that in relation to a firm a director means a partner, so a partnership cannot escape by pointing at its structure.
One consequence of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 should be kept in mind. This section speaks about offences. Several contraventions that used to be offences, such as false claims of patent rights and unregistered patent agent practice, are now penalties adjudicated under Section 124A. Section 124 therefore has its main practical field in the remaining offences, particularly breach of secrecy directions and unpermitted foreign filing under Section 118 and falsification of Register entries under Section 119, which are the areas where company officers face real criminal exposure.
Why this section matters
Directors, managing directors, partners, company secretaries, R&D heads and IP managers of companies handling patents.
Whenever a company files patents abroad, handles inventions under secrecy directions, or deals with the Register of Patents.
Personal criminal liability for persons in charge of the business, and for officers whose consent, connivance or neglect caused the offence.
Individuals can be prosecuted alongside the company, with no defence available unless lack of knowledge or due diligence can be proved.
How it works in practice
Two directors, two very different outcomes
Anvaya Sensors Pvt Ltd of Bengaluru files a patent application in Singapore for a sensor developed at its Indian facility, without permission under Section 39 and without first filing in India. The company faces an offence under Section 118. Investigators look at who was responsible. The technology director had approved the Singapore filing in an email, brushing aside a query from the patent team about Indian clearance. He falls squarely within the second limb of Section 124, because the offence was committed with his consent. The finance director, who was in charge of general administration, shows that the company had a written IP policy requiring a foreign filing clearance note for every application, that he had circulated and enforced it, that training was conducted, and that the Singapore filing bypassed the system without his knowledge. He relies on the due diligence defence. The company remains exposed, but the individual outcomes differ because one director could show a system that was actually operated.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of a company's business are deemed guilty when the company commits an offence.
- An individual escapes liability by proving lack of knowledge or that all due diligence was exercised.
- Directors, managers, secretaries and other officers are liable where consent, connivance or neglect on their part is proved.
- Company includes a firm or other association of individuals, and for a firm a director means a partner.
- After the 2023 decriminalisation, this section matters most for the remaining offences under Sections 118 and 119.
- Documented IP policies and clearance records are the practical way to make the due diligence defence real.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Believing only the company can be prosecuted. The section is designed to reach the individuals responsible for the conduct of the business.
- Assuming every director is automatically liable. The first limb applies to those in charge of the business, and the second needs proof of consent, connivance or neglect.
- Relying on a policy document nobody follows. The defence requires evidence of diligence in practice, such as approvals, training records and clearance notes.
- Thinking a partnership firm is outside the section. The explanation brings firms and associations of individuals within it, treating partners as directors.
Connected provisions
- ActSection 118Contravention of secrecy provisions relating to certain inventions
- ActSection 119Falsification of entries in register, etc.
- ActSection 120Unauthorised claim of patent rights
- ActSection 123Practice by non-registered patent agents
- ActSection 124AAdjudication of penalties
- ActSection 39Residents not to apply for patents outside India without prior permission
Sections and rules are different kinds of law. A section is enacted by Parliament, while a rule is made by the Central Government using powers the Act grants. Keeping them apart shows which text you are reading and which of the two is more likely to have been revised recently.
Forms, deadlines and fees
Any official fee connected with this provision is fixed by the First Schedule to the Patents Rules, not by the provision itself. The amount depends on who the applicant is and on whether the filing is made online or on paper, so no figures are reproduced here. How Indian patent fees work.
Related judgments
This part of the page is reserved for summaries of decided cases. They are added one at a time, after review by a person qualified to confirm that the summary matches the judgment. Nothing has been cleared for this provision so far, so there is nothing to show. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 124
Can a director be prosecuted personally under the Patents Act?
Yes, in the situations Section 124 describes. A person who was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the relevant time is deemed guilty when the company commits an offence, unless he proves he had no knowledge or exercised all due diligence. Separately, any director, manager, secretary or other officer is liable if the offence was committed with his consent or connivance, or is attributable to his neglect. The most common exposure in practice concerns foreign filing without permission under Section 118.
What does due diligence look like in a patent context?
A system that is written down and actually operated. In practice this means a documented IP policy, a rule that no application is filed outside India without a written clearance under Section 39, a record of who approved each filing, a calendar for renewals and working statements, periodic training for R&D and legal staff, and a named person accountable for compliance. If something goes wrong, these records are the evidence that supports the defence. Without them, an individual is left asserting good intentions with nothing to back them.
Does Section 124 apply to penalties under Section 124A?
Section 124 is written around offences committed by a company. After the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, several contraventions were converted into penalties decided by an adjudicating officer under Section 124A rather than offences tried by a criminal court, which narrows the field in which Section 124 operates. Its clearest application today is to the offences that remain, such as breach of secrecy directions and unpermitted foreign filing under Section 118 and falsification of the Register under Section 119. For a specific situation, take advice on how the two provisions interact on those facts.
Do your directors know their patent compliance duties?
MYCrave Consultancy builds practical IP compliance systems that protect the company and its officers.
You will be speaking with MYCrave Consultancy & Services, the firm that operates this platform. General questions are answered free; matter‑specific work is quoted before anything is done.