Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Abdul Sovan Vs. Ramani Mohan Chatterjee

Abdul Sovan vs Ramani Mohan Chatterjee

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 15, 1930
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/862195

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Sovan

Respondent

Ramani Mohan Chatterjee

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1930Cal664

Excerpt

- jack, j.1. the petitioner has been convicted under section 485, i.p.c., and sentenced to a fine of rs. 500 on the ground that he was in possession of a mould for counterfeiting the trade-mark of g. ghose, the manufacturer of hair oil. the rule was issued on the ground that the trade-mark was a combination trade-mark and possession of moulds for counterfeiting a part of the mark did not amount to an offence under section 485, i.p.c. it appears that the trade-mark consisted of an impression moulded in the glass of which the bottles are made, together with the label, and these moulds were for making the impression on the glass of the bottle. under section 485, i.p.c., whoever has in his possession any die for the purpose of counterfeiting the trade-mark is liable under the section. there can be no doubt in this that the mould in question was intended for the purpose of counterfeiting this trade-mark although the apparatus for counterfeiting the label which would complete the trade-mark has not been found, and inasmuch as this mould was certainly meant to be used in order to counterfeit the trade-mark the petitioner has rightly been held liable under section 485, i.p.c.2. the rule is therefore discharged. the petitioner will surrender to his bail bond and serve out the remainder of his. sentence.

Full Judgment

Jack, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 485, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500 on the ground that he was in possession of a mould for counterfeiting the trade-mark of G. Ghose, the manufacturer of hair oil. The rule was issued on the ground that the trade-mark was a combination trade-mark and possession of moulds for counterfeiting a part of the mark did not amount to an offence under Section 485, I.P.C. It appears that the trade-mark consisted of an impression moulded in the glass of which the bottles are made, together with the label, and these moulds were for making the impression on the glass of the bottle. Under Section 485, I.P.C., whoever has in his possession any die for the purpose of counterfeiting the trade-mark is liable under the section. There can be no doubt in this that the mould in question was intended for the purpose of counterfeiting this trade-mark although the apparatus for counterfeiting the label which would complete the trade-mark has not been found, and inasmuch as this mould was certainly meant to be used in order to counterfeit the trade-mark the petitioner has rightly been held liable under Section 485, I.P.C.

2. The Rule is therefore discharged. The petitioner will surrender to his bail bond and serve out the remainder of his. sentence.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial