LATIF MIYAN Vs. EMPEROR THROUGH HAR DEO DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the application in revision of one Latif Miyan, who has been convicted of an offence under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, the offence of using a false trade-mark.

(2.) The facts as found by the Court below are as follows: The accused and one Ali Miyan carry on business as commission agents in the bazar in Cawnpore and deal principally in sugar. A few doors away from the accused s place of business is the shop of another firm of commission agents called Hardeo Das and Kalyan Mai. This firm too deals in sugar, and the evidence is that they have established a special line of trade in hand-made sugar which they export from Cawnpore to Rajputana. It appears that they deal in machine-made sugar as well, but in the cases where they supply the hand-made article they have it put up in sacks stamped with the name of their firm. The machine-made sugar on the contrary is supplied in the sacks as they come from the manufacturer. According to the evidence, when orders are placed for hand-made sugar the complainant firm procures the goods from certain manufacturers in Ghazipur, Azamgarh and Ballia. This sugar is then put up in bags bearing the name of the firm and passed on to the purchaser. The complainants say that in this way they have acquired a trade reputation and that their firm s name stamped on the bags is accepted as a guarantee that the bags contain hand-made and not machine-made sugar.

(3.) On the 9th March an employee of the complainants noticed outside the place of business of tike accused a collection of forty sacks. stamped with the name of the complainant firm. Having ascertained that no bags bearing the name had been sold to the accused s firm, he questioned the accused who gave evasive replies. The Police were communicated with and meantime the accused began to obliterate the marks. The learned Judge has held that the marks were a colourable imitation of the marks used by the complainants. The defence was that the sugar in these bags, machine-made sugar, had been obtained to the order of a merchant named Qasim Miyan and that it was the latter, and not the accused, who had put the marks on the sacks. This man was summoned as a witness for the defence, but his attendance could not be procured. The Judge was of opinion that in any case it was proved that the accused had abetted Qasim Miyan in the matter of affixing the false marks and as I have said, there is the evidence to show that it was the accused who began to obliterate the marks when the complainants man went to inform the Police. It has been argued in the first place that on the facts found no case of "using" the false mark was established against the accused. This contention is disposed of by what has just been said. The anxiety of the accused to cause the disappearance of the marks can only be attributed to the fact that he put them there himself or assisted in putting them there.