NOOR MAHOMED HAJI USMAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from a complaint filed by one Mahadev Shantaram Pawar, Manager, Sable Waghire and Co. for offences under Sections 482, 483 and 486, I. P. C. The prosecution story, as set out in the complaint, is as follows: --The complainant is the Bombay Manager of the firm of M/s. Sable Waghire and Co. of Poona. The firm has a sales office in Bombay. Accused 1 is a bidi merchant and he carries on business near the Null Bazar Market. Accused 2 is a tobacco dealer in Poona. The firm of M/s Sable Waghire and Co. manufactures bidis, according to the complainant, for over thirty years and the bidis which arc manufactured are known as "shivaji bidis" or "chhatrapati bidis". The bidis in question together with the labels are the property of the firm and they are registered as a trade mark and property mark with the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, the registration number being 12549 of 25-2-1943. According to the complainant, the goods have acquired popularity and the labels which are printed on rose paper have a distinctive mark in relation to the goods manufactured by the firm. On account of the popularity and eminence of the goods, spurious imitations are made by dishonest traders wanting to make easy money by passing off their spurious and imitated goods of inferior quality as the goods of the firm of M/s Sable Waghire and Co. The firm has four manufacturing centres in the State of Bombay and the firm has employed over a thousand workers at those centres and the daily turn-over of the goods manufactured by the firm is twelve laks of bidis.

(2.) THE Manager says that upon receipt of information from the sales agents and his customers he visited the bidi shop of accused No. 1 and he noticed that the first accused had stored the bidis both in packets and containers exactly similar and identical to the goods manufactured by the firm and that the first accused was selling bidis in those labels and containers to the customers asking for "chhatrapati bidis". He says that on 5-2-1954 and again on 6-2-1954 he along with his salesman approached the first accused and asked for "chhatrapati bidis" and he was given a container consisting of twenty packets of twenty-five bidis each for a price of Rs. 2-11-0. A memo was not given to him in respect of the goods purchased, although one was asked for and at the time of the purchase witnesses Nos. 2 to 6 i. e. the witnesses mentioned in the complaint, asked for "chhatrapati bidis" and they were sold 500 and 25 bidis each for a price of Rs. 2-11-0 and Re. 0-2-6 respectively.

(3.) A further inquiry was made and the complainant noticed that accused No. 1 was in league with accused No: 2 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 were both aiding and abetting each other in the manufacture and sale of the imitated goods with a dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the business of M/s. Sable Waghire and Co. The words in Marathi "registered Trade Mark No. 63" appearing on the container of the goods of the accused are misleading and they constitute a false statement calculated to cheat the public and the authorities concerned as there is no such trade mark No. 63. The complainant says that the accused are the makers and manufacturers of false and counterfeit trade marks and property marks and are in possession of instruments and goods for manufacturing the same with criminal intent to manufacture goods, labels and seals of the trade mark of M/s. Sable Waghire and Co. and pass them off to customers asking for the goods of the firm and are thus cheating the customers. 3a. The first accused as well as the second accused filed lengthy written statements, denying the charges laid against them; The learned Magistrate considered the evidence led before him, both oral and documentary, and he came to various conclusions as set out in his Judgment. The main finding which was given by him by looking at Exs. E and F and A and C is that Ex. E bears a colourable imitation of the trade mark which is on Ex. G and Ex. P bears a colourable imitation of the trade mark which is on Ex. A, and having come to that conclusion, he convicted accused 1 of the offence under Section 486 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten days. He also convicted accused No. 2 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten days on the first count and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the second count. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 feeling aggrieved by the convictions and the sentences imposed upon them, have filed this appeal.