KUNDAN LAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kundan Lal Agarwal and Badri Prasad have applied in revision against the dismissal of their appeal by the IInd Civil and Sessions Judge, Luck-now, against their conviction for offences under Sections 482 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Kundan Lal is the proprietor and Badri prasad, an employee of the firm from whose premises were recovered certain quantities of soap with labels "Sumbright", "Sumlight", "Sunleght" "Lillyboy" on a search on 19-5-1953. It has been held by the courts below that the manufacturers have counterfeited the trade marks of Lever Brothers with respect to the name and the label of "Sunlight" soap and "lifebuoy" soap and that the applicants committed the offences under Sections 482 and 486, I. P. C., because they used goods with false mark and had in their possession goods with counterfeit marks. The courts below did not agree with the contention that the case of the accused came under any of the Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 486, I. P. C.

(3.) This revision first came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court who was not in agreement with the interpretation of law made by Gopaljj Mehrotra, J., in Hafiz Mohd. Ismail v. The State, Cri Revn. No. 116 of 1955, D/-17-3-1956 (All) (A), & referred the case for decision to a Division Bench. The applicant in that case was also convicted for offences under Sections 482 and 486, I. P. C., in connection with the recovery of "sumbright", "sunolight" and "Lilly-boy" soaps. It was held by this Court that the applicant in that case did not commit an offence under Section 482, I. P. C., because mere possession did not amount to the using of goods marked with false trade marks and was also not guilty under Section 486, I. P. C., as he was not in possession of goods with a counterfeit trade mark but of goods which were colourable imitations of the genuine trade mark.