Section 124 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 124 says that when a company commits an offence under the Patents Act, the company and every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time are deemed guilty and can be proceeded against. A person can escape by proving the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence. Sub-section (2) adds directors, managers, secretaries and other officers whose consent, connivance or neglect is proved. If your company deals with secrecy directions or foreign filings, our legal consultation team can help set up the checks that section 124 rewards.
s.124(1): when the person committing an offence under this Act is a company, the company and every person in charge of, and responsible to, it for the conduct of its business at the time are deemed guilty. Proviso: no punishment if he proves the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence. s.124(2): a director, manager, secretary or other officer is also deemed guilty if the offence was committed with his consent or connivance or is attributable to his neglect. Explanation: "company" includes a firm or association of individuals, and "director" of a firm means a partner.
Amendments to know
Section 124 is printed without any amendment footnote. Neither the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 nor the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 changed its wording. But the 2023 Act changed what remains in Chapter XX: sections 120, 122 and 123 now say "he shall be liable to penalty", while section 124 still speaks of "an offence under this Act" and of persons being "punished". Read it with that in mind.
Sub-section (1): the company and the persons in charge
"If the person committing an offence under this Act is a company, the company as well as every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offence shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
The sub-section has three moving parts.
| Part | What the text says |
|---|---|
| Trigger | An offence "under this Act" committed by a company |
| Who is deemed guilty | The company, and "every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission" |
| Consequence | Liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly |
Both limbs of "in charge of" and "responsible to the company for the conduct of its business" are needed. A person who holds a title but has no day-to-day charge of the business is not described by those words, but the text does not say how this is proved.
The proviso
"Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence."
Two features matter. First, the burden: the person "proves". Second, the two defences are alternatives: (a) the offence was committed without his knowledge, or (b) he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission. The proviso protects "such person" (the person in charge). The text does not extend it to the company itself.
Sub-section (2): directors, managers and other officers
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or that the commission of the offence is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
The difference from sub-section (1) is that here "it is proved" that the offence was committed with consent or connivance, or is attributable to neglect, on the part of the officer. The proviso to sub-section (1) is about the defence of a person in charge; sub-section (2) starts with "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)" and so applies to officers beyond those in charge.
| Officer | Deemed guilty if |
|---|---|
| Director, manager, secretary or other officer | Offence committed with his consent or connivance, or attributable to his neglect (proved) |
| Person in charge and responsible (sub-section (1)) | Offence committed by the company, unless he proves lack of knowledge or all due diligence |
Explanation: "company" and "director"
For the purposes of the section:
- "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals;
- "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
So a partnership firm and its partners are within the section, and a partner is treated as a director.
Which offences does it reach?
The section speaks of "an offence under this Act". In the printed text, the sections that say a person "shall be punishable with imprisonment" are section 118 (secrecy contravention) and section 119 (falsification of register); see our article on sections 118 and 119. Section 124B(6) also makes failure to comply with an adjudicating or appellate order within ninety days "punishable with fine of one lakh rupees or imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with both". Sections 120, 122 and 123 now provide a "penalty" and use the words "liable to penalty". The text of section 124 does not say whether it also reaches these penalty provisions. That is a gap in the printed text, and a reader should not assume either way.
The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 provides for a further change to Chapter XX (the heading, a proviso to section 118 and omission of section 119) but does not mention section 124. Check whether the 2026 amendment has been brought into force. Where the section is read with criminal procedure, note that from 1 July 2024 the BNSS and BNS replaced the older codes; section 124 cites neither.
Illustration (invented)
Lakshya Defence Technologies Pvt. Ltd. holds an invention subject to a secrecy direction. Its export manager sends the technical file to a foreign buyer in breach of the direction. The company has committed an offence; under section 124(1) the company and every person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business at the time are deemed guilty. The managing director shows that the company had a written compliance procedure, trained its staff on secrecy directions and that the breach occurred in spite of it, so she proves she exercised all due diligence and is not punished. The head of exports, who received a warning from the legal team and ignored it, is a manager whose neglect is proved. Under sub-section (2) he is also deemed guilty.
What the section does not say
- It does not say how "in charge of" is proved.
- It does not say which court tries the matter.
- It does not say whether it covers penalty provisions.
- It does not prescribe a form of evidence for the proviso.
Need help setting up compliance for your company?
Directors and managers can reduce exposure by recording who is responsible, training staff and keeping proof of due diligence. Our legal consultation team can help review your procedures for secrecy directions, foreign filing and communication with the Patent Office.
Key takeaways
- When a company commits an offence under the Act, the company and every person in charge of and responsible for its business are deemed guilty.
- A person in charge can avoid punishment by proving no knowledge or all due diligence.
- A director, manager, secretary or other officer is also deemed guilty if consent, connivance or neglect is proved.
- "Company" includes a firm or association of individuals; a partner is a "director" of a firm.
- The text does not say whether section 124 applies to the monetary penalties re-cast in 2024.
Read next
- Sections 118 and 119: contravention of secrecy provisions and falsification of the register
- Sections 124A and 124B: adjudication of penalties and appeal
- Sections 122 and 123: refusal to supply information and practice by non-registered agents
- Introduction to the Patents Act, 1970: complete guide
Disclaimer: Based on the Patents Act, 1970 as amended up to the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, as consulted on 1 October 2026. Forms, fees and time limits under the Patents Rules, 2003 change from time to time and are not covered here. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.