EMPEROR Vs. GANPAT SITARAM MUKADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We assume for the purposes of this judgment that the sentence is an appealable sentence, but we do not decide the point. It is immaterial, because we consider the conviction is correct.

(2.) There is no doubt in our minds that the accused, the present appellant, has in fact used a false trade-mark. We gather this from the conclusion of the Magistrate taken together with the evidence of our own senses when we look at the boxes of tooth powder, one of which is said to resemble the other. That being so, I think there is no substance in any of the defences. It is urged that the conviction is for counterfeit and that a counterfeit trade-mark is not at all the same thing as a false trade-mark which is defined in Section 480. It seems to us, however, that for the purposes of this case false trade-mark and counterfeit trade-mark are the same thing. Then it was urged that the case fell under Clause (a) or (b) or (c) of Section 486. I do not think this is so. The Magistrate decided that this deception was not innocent and that reasonable precautions had not been taken. I think he was right in so deciding.

(3.) Therefore the appeal must be dismissed and the sentence confirmed.