EMPEROR Vs. DHANRAJ MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused by the Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Bombay. The accused were prosecuted under Section 6 of the Indian Merchandise Marks Act (IV of 1889), and that section provides that if a person applies a false trade description to goods, he shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, and unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punished with imprisonment or fine, and on subsequent conviction with enhanced imprisonment or fine, as therein mentioned.

(2.) THE findings of fact of the learned Magistrate are that the accused sold certain bales of piece goods, and that a substantial number of the pieces were stamped with a length mark of twenty-four yards, though in fact they were of less than that length. THE variations were not constant; in the case of some of the pieces the shortage was much greater than in the case of other pieces; some pieces were correctly stamped, and some were even longer than the figure with which they were stamped; which facts suggest insufficient checking, rather than a fraudulent design. But on the facts the learned Magistrate held that the accused had applied a false trade description to goods, and I see no reason to differ from his finding. He acquitted the accused, because he held that "mens rea" is an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 6, and that in consequence a corporation, like the accused, could not be convicted under that section. He added this : I go further and hold that even assuming that that element" (of mens rea) " was not there, the accused have shown that they have taken all the precautions in the conduct of the business which they were expected to take according to the usual manner in which the business is carried on in the other textile factories in the city and there was no reason for them to suspect the genuineness of the marks put on the particular goods in question and had no intention to defraud. That finding has not been seriously challenged, and I think we must accept the learned Magistrate's view that the accused through their agents had taken all ordinary precautions for finding out that the pieces were correctly stamped.

(3.) I agree.