MANGALPRASAD JETHALAL UPADHYAYA Vs. TOFIKBHAI KARIMBHAI
LAWS(GJH)-1988-6-8
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on June 18,1988

Mangalprasad Jethalal Upadhyaya Appellant
VERSUS
Tofikbhai Karimbhai And Others Respondents




JUDGEMENT

D.H.SHUKLA - (1.)The appellant Mangalprasad Jethalal Upadhyay lodged a private complaint dated 3-1-1979 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bagasara Vadiya as the power-of attorney-holder for and on behalf of Hiralal Parbhuram Tapkirwala a registered partnership firm having its Registered Office at Yeola district Nasik Maharashtra against unknown under Secs. 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In his complaint he averred that his principals are manufacturers of Beedies which were sold under the trade-mark the specimen of which he produced with his complaint. He averred that the beedies produced by his principals had acquired a reputation in the market and that his principals had a very large business in the same subject-matter. He averred that the trade-mark was duly registered under the Act and its Registration No. 176239. He averred that his principals had come to know that in the market of Vadia beedies bearing a trade-mark deceptively similar to the trade-mark of his principal was floated. He further averred that the accused persons appeared to have full knowledge of the popularity of the goods of the complainants principals and therefore it is clear that the accused wanted to sell their beedies of inferior quality under a deceptive trademark. He therefore prayed that the matter be referred to the Police for investigation and necessary action. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bagasara-Vadia examined the complainant and ordered an inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After the inquiry was over a criminal case under Secs. 78 and 79 of the Act was put up against the two respondent Tofikbhai Karimbhai and Rajakbhai Karimbhai. The trial Judge recorded the plea of the accused and on the accused denying and liability proceeded to try them.
(2.)At the end of the trial he acquitted both the accused and hence the present appeal by the original complainant.
(3.)Mr. R. K. Shah the learned Advocate for the appellant took me through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the evidence on record.
;


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