SHANTILAL UTTAMRAM MEHTA Vs. DHANJI KANJI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the complainant with the leave of the Court from an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, III Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Case No. 327/s of 1959.

(2.) THE complainant Shantilal Uttamram Mehta is the General Manager of Messrs. Parte Products Manufacturing Company Limited. The company manufactures biscuits and confectionery, which are sold in the market on a large scale. In February 1958 the complainant Shantilal Uttamram Mehta received reports that biscuits were being manufactured and wrapped in wrappers which, were counterfeit of the wrappers used by Messrs. Parle Products and were being sold in the market. The complainant lodged a complaint On 26th March. 1958 and on 15th May 1958 he- obtained an. order for raiding the shop of Dhanji and Company. That shop is owned by accused No. 1 and was being managed by accused No. 2. Sub-Inspector Vaidya of the C. I. D. raided the shop. Accused No. 2 was present in the shop. In the course of raid 22 packets of 'bengal Glucose' biscuits, 17 packets of 'royal Glucose' biscuits and 14 packets of 'm. H. Milk Glucose' biscuits were seized at the instance of the complainant. At the time of the trial only five packets of 'bengal Glucose,' biscuits, 3 packets of 'm. H. Milk Glucose' biscuits and 4 packets of 'royal Glucose' biscuits could be Produced and it was stated that the rest of the packets were eaten away by rats and were not, therefore, available for production, it was the case for the complainant that the design On the wrappers in which the three verities of biscuits were packetted, were counterfeit of the design of the Parle Glucose Biscuits and, therefore, both the accused were liable under Section 486 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) BOTH the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Accused No. 1 contended that he was carrying on the manufacture of confectionery and was devoting his attention to that business. He further stated that so far as the shop Dhanji and Co. , is concerned, the management was entrusted to accused No. 2. He stated that he visits the shop off. and on and was not aware as to which goods were purchased by accused No. 2 and kept in the shop for the purpose of sale. He also contended that he had given specific instructions to accused No. 2 not to deal in objectionable biscuits. In answer to questions under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, accused No. 1 denied that the wrappers were imitations or counterfeits of the wrappers of the Glucose Biscuits trade mark. Accused No. 2 admitted that he purchased the objectionable biscuit packets. He, however, suggested that he purchased them from hawkers, who sell these goods on the footpath. In substance his defence was that he was not careful enough to see that the wrappers of the packets, which he purchased, were colourable imitations of the packets used by Parle Manufacturing Company. He admitted that his master, that is, accused No. 1, had given strict instructions not to deal in objectionable goods. He also denied that the wrappers were colourable imitations of Parle Glucose Biscuit Packets.