Section 49 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 49 says what happens when the person committing an offence under the Act is a company. The company and every person in charge of its business at the time are deemed guilty, subject to a defence of no knowledge or due diligence, and directors, managers, secretaries and other officers are also liable where the offence was committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect. If you run or advise a business that trades in indicated goods, our legal consultation team can help you build the compliance record that this section rewards.
If a company commits an offence under the Act, the company and every person in charge of, and responsible for, its business at the time are deemed guilty and may be punished. A person in charge escapes if he proves the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence. Separately, a director, manager, secretary or other officer is also guilty if the offence was committed with his consent or connivance or is attributable to his neglect. "Company" includes a firm or other association of individuals.
Status after the amending Acts
Section 49 is not on the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 list and is not changed by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023. The printed text is current. It speaks of "an offence under this Act"; the section 42(2) money penalty is no longer worded as an offence, so how this section sits with it is not spelled out in the text. Sections 39, 40 and 41 remain offences for a court, and section 49 applies to them squarely.
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."
Points to note:
- Two kinds of accused: the company itself, and every person who was both "in charge of" and "responsible to" the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the offence.
- Deeming: guilt is "deemed", so the prosecution does not have to prove personal participation to bring the person in charge into the case.
- Time: it is the position at the time of commission that counts, not the position at the date of the complaint.
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."
The accused person must prove one of two things: no knowledge, or all due diligence. Both are for him to establish. Minutes of compliance reviews, written instructions to staff and records of checks on suppliers are the kind of material that supports due diligence.
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 in who proves what.
| Sub-section (1) | Sub-section (2) | |
|---|---|---|
| Who | Every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for its business at the time | Any director, manager, secretary or other officer |
| What links the person to the offence | Position alone (deemed guilty) | Proof of consent, connivance or neglect |
| Who has the burden | The person, to prove no knowledge or due diligence | The prosecution, "it is proved that..." |
| Defence | Proviso: no knowledge or all due diligence | Disproving consent, connivance or neglect |
The Explanation: what "company" and "director" mean here
"For the purposes of this section,—
- (a) 'company' means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
- (b) 'director', in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."
So a partnership, a proprietary arrangement structured as a firm, or an association such as a producer society can be the "company", and its partners are its "directors" for this purpose. A producer association that applies indications to goods in breach of the Act is covered. The meaning of "body corporate" itself is not defined in the text we read, so we do not expand on it.
Which offences does it reach?
The section says "an offence under this Act". The offences in the Act that carry imprisonment are in section 39, section 40, section 41, and non-compliance under section 37B(6). The section 37B(6) consequence has its own wording ("the person fails to comply"), and the text does not say that section 49 applies to it. Offences in sections 39 to 41 are clearly covered; the others are not addressed.
Examples
Example 1. Rangoli Packaging Private Limited prints an invented indication on cartons without assent. Its managing director signs off every print order. Both the company and the managing director are liable under sub-section (1), unless the managing director proves he did not know or used all due diligence.
Example 2. The company secretary of the same company knew of the print order and said nothing. Under sub-section (2), the prosecution must prove consent, connivance or neglect on his part.
Example 3. A partnership firm of three partners sells counterfeit-labelled goods. The firm is a "company" under the Explanation, and each partner is a "director".
What the section does not say
- It does not define "in charge of, and responsible to".
- It does not say how a person proves "all due diligence"; the court looks at the facts.
- It does not say whether a nominee or non-executive director is treated differently; sub-section (2) turns on consent, connivance or neglect.
- It does not set any penalty of its own; it applies the punishment for the underlying offence.
Practical points
- Name, in writing, who is responsible for intellectual property compliance in the business.
- Keep records showing review of labels and packaging, especially where you handle indicated goods.
- Directors and partners should not rely on a lack of daily involvement; neglect is enough under sub-section (2).
- Associations and firms that print or sell indicated goods should treat themselves as covered.
Need help with company-level GI compliance?
Section 49 puts both the business and its managers in the frame. Our legal consultation team can review your labelling and sourcing practices, set up a record trail that supports the due-diligence proviso and advise a director or partner who has been named in a complaint.
Key takeaways
- A company, and every person in charge of its business at the time, is deemed guilty of an offence under the Act.
- A person in charge is saved if he proves no knowledge or all due diligence.
- Directors, managers, secretaries and other officers are liable if consent, connivance or neglect is proved.
- "Company" includes firms and associations; "director" means a partner in a firm.
- The section did not change under the 2021 or 2023 amending Acts.
Read next
- Section 39: penalty for applying false geographical indications
- Section 40: penalty for selling goods with a false geographical indication
- Section 50: cognizance and police search and seizure
- Infringement of geographical indication: penalties
Disclaimer: Based on the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 read with the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, as consulted on 1 October 2026. Forms, fees and procedure are set by the rules made under the Act. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.