STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. HAFIZ MOHAMMAD ISMAIL:HAFIZ JAWED ALI
LAWS(SC)-1960-2-22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on February 09,1960

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
HAFIZ MOHD.ISMAIL,HAFIZ JAWED ALI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RONEY DUBEY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY JAYWANT GAIKWAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMEEM AHMED VS. MOHAN LAL [LAWS(ALL)-1966-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
SHEOJANAM PRASAD VS. SUMANT PRASAD JAIN [LAWS(PAT)-1969-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
LIYAKAT ALI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. BALWINDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
K HASIM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2004-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
DINESHWAR ALIAS MUNNA VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2006-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-157] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Wanchoo, J. - (1.)These are two connected appeals by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The brief facts necessary for their disposal are these. One Bhagwan Swarup Saxsena, the Trade Marks Investigator, Lever Brothers Limited India (hereinafter called the company) was working in Lucknow an behalf of the company. He came to know that counterfeit Sunlight and Lifebuoy soaps were being manufactured and sold on a large scale in Yahiaganj and other places in Lucknow. This was investigated on behalf of the company which manufactured genuine Sunlight and Life-buoy soaps. It was found that two soaps factories in Luncknow were manufacturing counterfeit Sunlight and Lifebuoy soaps. It was also found that Hafiz Mohammad Ismail and Hafiz Jawed Ali who are the respondents in the two appeals before us were selling these counterfeit soaps in Yahiaganj where they have shops. Consequently a raid was made on the two shops with the help of the police on May 19, 1953. A large number of soaps were recovered from the two shops which were wrapped in labels said to be counterfeits of those in which the genuine Sunlight and Lifebuoy soaps of the company are sold. Consequently the two respondents were prosecuted under Ss. 482 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)The Magistrate found the case proved and held that the labels in which the respondents were selling soaps were counterfeit of the labels of genuine Sunlight and Lifebuoy soaps. He, therefore, convicted the respondents under Ss. 482 and 486 of the Code. The respondents went in appeal to the Sessions Judge but their appeals were dismissed. They then went in revision to the High Court. The High Court held that the cases did not fall within S. 482 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore acquitted them of the charge under that section. It further held that the labels or wrappers used on the soaps sold by the respondents could not be regarded as counterfeit of the genuine wrappers and labels of Sunlight and Lifebuoy soaps though they were colourable imitations of the same; it therefore acquitted them under S. 486 also, without going into the other points raised on behalf of the respondents. The applications of the State of Uttar Pradesh for a certificate to appeal to this Court having been rejected, the State applied for leave to appeal to this Court which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.
(3.)The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State has not pressed the appeals so far as the acquittal under S. 482 of the Code is concerned. The acquittal therefore under that section will stand. He has, however, strenuously urged that the view of the High Court that the wrappers and labels are not counterfeit but are mere colourable imitations of the genuine trade marks of the company is incorrect inasmuch as the High Court has not given full effect to the words of S. 486 in that behalf and the definition of 'counterfeit' in S. 28 of the Indian Penal Code.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.