S T SHANMUGHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision case is directed against the conviction and sentence of fine of the two petitioners by the Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, under Section 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act.

(2.) THE facts of this case are somewhat peculiar. The two petitioners are said to be doing beedi business at 1/17 Narayanappa Garden St. Washermenpet. But, they were found in possession of beedi bundles bearing the trade marks of one Kareem Beedi factory, which, according to the prosecution, being for purposes of trade with a false trade mark was culpable both under , I. P. C. and under Section 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act of 1958.

(3.) EX. P. 20 is the complaint made by Abdul Kareem and Co. , Manufacturers of the Kareem Beedi. In the course of investigation into this complaint, the Sub-Inspector, P. W. 1, traced the two petitioners who are brothers and searched their house as per the search list, Ex. P. 1, when he is said to have recovered bogus beedi bundles, ring labels, belly labels, etc. He further found on a close scrutiny that these labels are imitations of Kareem Beedi labels. It was proved through P. W. 5 that labels seized from the petitioners were bogus ones. P. W. 4, a servant of the petitioners for pasting labels, deposed that she pasted Exs, P. 9 and P. 15 the ring labels taking them to be Kareem Beedi labels as they looked like Kareem Beedi labels. A scrutiny of these labels with the genuine Kareem Beedi labels further revealed the. printing of the latter labels to he much clearer as compared to the former. Again while Kareem Beedi ring labels were printed on full size paper and contained 1,500 labels, the bogus ones were printed in quarter sheets and contained only 300 labels. There were also differences-in the wrapper used for genuine Kareen Beedi. bundles and packets and the ones used by the petitioners, and P. W. 5, swore that the different labels of Kareem Beedi have also been registered, under the Trade Marks Act.