1. The conviction cannot be supported. Though the get-up of the accused's packets of beedies bears considerable resemblance to the get-up of the complainant's packets, and it may be that, the complainant may be entitled in n Civil action to obtain an injunction against the accused's selling his goods in such packets, yet the trademark used by the accused, a crescent encircling a crown over the letters A.M.R. is sufficiently different from the complainant's trade-mark, a crescent encircling a star over the letters A.G.M. I do not think that it can be said that the accused has been guilty of using a false trade-mark, or of selling goods having a counterfeit trade-mark. The dispute is one which may be fitly decided in a Civil Court, vide Surja Prasad v. Mohabir Prasad Tribedy 11 C.W.N. 887 : 6 Cri. L.J. 151; Mmperor v. Bukaullah Mallik 31 C.P 411 : 8 C.W.N. 307 : 1 Cri. L.J. 140 and Dowlat Ram v. Emperor 32 C.P 431 : 2 Cri. L.J. 320. The conviction is set aside and the fine, if paid, must be refunded. The petitioner is entitled to a refund of the sum of Rs. 100 ordered to be paid as costs and to a return of the property directed to be forfeited.