CHANDKHAN NOONKHAN MUSALMAN Vs. KISHANLAL GANGARAM PARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts leading to this revision are that the complainant Kishanlal, partner of the Jain Bidi Company, Guna, filed a complaint against Moti Khan and chand Khan, proprietors of C. M. Bidi Co, alleging that the accused have used the false "trade mark". The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 482 of the i. P. C. for using false trade-mark and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 250/-, and the complainants were also awarded compensation to the tune of 200 rupees under Section 545 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Aggrieved by this decision, the accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Guna but that decision was confirmed by him. Now the accused have filed this revision.

(2.) I am surprised that the lower courts have failed to consider an elementary point, which is so patent on the face of the record. The label fixed on the bundle of the complainants' Bidis bears No. "16", whereas the label on the bundle of the bidis of the accused bears No. "19". The short question in the circumstances is whether in view of the two totally different numbers it can be said that the accused have marked their labels in a manner reasonably calculated to cause it to be believed that the goods so marked are manufactured by the complainants. The offence of using a false trademark is defined in Section 480 of the I. P. C. It runs thus:

(3.) A look at the above section would show that in order to establish a case under section 480, the prosecution must prove that the accused marked his goods in a manner which reasonably showed to others that the goods so marked were the merchandise of some other person.