Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Ganpat Sitaram Mukadam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 511 of 1913
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Bom128(1); (1914)16BOMLR78; 24Ind.Cas.834
AppellantEmperor
RespondentGanpat Sitaram Mukadam
Excerpt:
indian penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 486-counterfeiting trade-mark -merchandise marks act (iv of 1884) section 14- costs of successful party-costs in appeal.;a person who employs a label which in general resembles the label used by another manufacturer is guilty of counterfeiting the trade-mark under section 486 of the indian penal code, irrespective of the circumstance that the registered trade-mark of the one is quite different from the trade-mark of the other.;an appellate court can award the costs of appeal, under section 14 of the merchandise marks act. - .....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.....
Judgment:

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.

4. We decide to allow Rs. 50 as costs in the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //