Offences by 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.
The last five sections of Chapter IX decide who is liable when a company commits an offence, who can start a prosecution, who pays costs, whether an officer can be made to reveal an informer and what happens when someone in India abets an act abroad. Companies, their directors and their enforcement teams should read them with the offences in sections 56 to 59.
This article reflects the Act as amended up to 3 October 2026 (the Act has not been amended since it was enacted in 2000). Check sicldr.gov.in for later notifications. Sections 63 to 67 have been in force since 1 May 2011. A director or manager who may be named in a complaint should take legal dispute resolution advice at once.
When 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, unless that person proves the offence was without his knowledge or that he used all due diligence. 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. No court takes cognizance of a section 56 or 57 offence except on a written complaint by the registered proprietor or registered user, and of a section 58 or 59 offence except on a written complaint by the Registrar or an authorised officer.
Section 63: offences by companies
63(1): the company and the person 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 proviso: nothing in the sub-section renders such a person liable to 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 burden to prove falls on the person in charge.
63(2): consent, connivance or neglect
Notwithstanding sub-section (1), where an offence 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". Here the complainant must prove the consent, connivance or neglect.
| Provision | Who is caught | Who proves what |
|---|---|---|
| 63(1) | The company, and every person in charge of and responsible for its business at the time | The person in charge can escape by proving lack of knowledge or due diligence |
| 63(2) | A director, manager, secretary or other officer | It must be proved that the offence was with consent or connivance, or attributable to neglect |
The Explanation
For this section, "company" means "any body corporate and includes a firm or other association or individuals", and "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. So a partnership that sells infringing chips is treated as a company, and its partners as directors.
Section 64: who may complain
"No court shall take cognizance":
| Offence | Only on a complaint in writing by |
|---|---|
| Section 56 (infringement) or section 57 (false claim of registration) | The registered proprietor or the registered user of the layout-design in respect of which the offence has been committed |
| Section 58 (Registry connection) or section 59 (false entries) | The Registrar or any officer authorised by him in writing |
A rival or a customer cannot start a prosecution for infringement; only the registered proprietor or registered user can. This links to the registered user's own-name complaint under section 28, discussed in sections 26 to 29. The offences are in sections 56 to 59.
Section 65: costs of defence or prosecution
"In any prosecution under this Act, the court may order such costs to be paid by the accused to the complainant, or by the complainant to the accused, as the court deemed reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties. Costs so awarded shall be recoverable as if they were a fine." Costs can run both ways. A complainant who files a weak case can be ordered to pay the accused, and the costs are recovered as if they were a fine.
Section 66: informers
"An officer of the Government whose duty it is to take part in the enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be compelled in any court to say when he got any information as to the commission of any offence against this Act." The protection is for the officer: he cannot be compelled to say when he got the information. The text speaks of when, not from whom, so the scope is narrower than the heading "Information as to commission of offence" might suggest.
Section 67: abetment from India of acts abroad
"If any person, being within India, abets the commission, without India, of any act which, if committed in India, would, under this Act, be an offence, he may be tried for such abetment in any place in India in which he may be found, and be punished therefor with the punishment to which he would be liable if he had himself committed in that place the act which he abetted." A person in India who helps an overseas copier, for example by supplying layout data, is reachable even though the act itself is abroad.
Putting it together
A prosecution under the Act starts with a written complaint by the right person (section 64), may proceed against the company and its responsible officers (section 63), can carry costs both ways (section 65), and may reach an Indian abettor of acts abroad (section 67). For an accused employee, the defence in section 61 and the saving in section 90 are in sections 60 to 62.
A worked example
A private company imports and sells chips that incorporate a registered layout without authority, knowing of the registration. The registered proprietor makes a written complaint. Under section 63(1) the company and its managing director, who was in charge of its business, are proceeded against. The managing director can avoid punishment by proving the offence took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence. The company's finance director, who was not in charge of its business and had no part in sales, is not caught under 63(1) and is caught under 63(2) only if it is proved that the offence was with his consent or connivance or due to his neglect. At the end of the case, the court may order costs, either way, recoverable as a fine.
Need help as a company or an officer?
Whether you represent a company named in a complaint, or a proprietor planning one, our legal dispute resolution team can review the roles, the proof points and the procedure.
Key takeaways
- A company and every person in charge of its business are deemed guilty, subject to the proviso.
- Directors, managers, secretaries and officers are caught by consent, connivance or neglect.
- "Company" includes a firm or association; a partner is a "director".
- Only the registered proprietor or registered user can complain for sections 56 and 57; only the Registrar or an authorised officer for sections 58 and 59.
- Costs can be awarded either way; abetment from India of acts abroad is punishable.
Read next
- Sections 56 to 59: penalties
- Sections 60 to 62: forfeiture and defences
- Sections 26 to 29: registered users
Disclaimer: Based on the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 (never amended; commencement as notified in 2004, 2011 and 2014) and the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Rules, 2001 as amended by G.S.R. 689(E) of 14 September 2012, as consulted on 3 October 2026. Check sicldr.gov.in for later notifications and current forms and fees. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.