State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Ramlal and ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh. vs Ramlal and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur Decided Jun 25, 2010

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911751

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/911751
Court: Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur High Court
Judge: G.S. Solanki, J.
Decided On: Jun 25, 2010
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1636/95.
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

[MOHIT S. SHAH; S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ.] - The respondents contended that they are the proprietors inter-alia of the trade mark 555 written in a stylized manner. The respondents claim to be the assignees of this mark. The mark was assigned from time to time. Ultimately by a Deed of Assignment dated 14.9.2004, the registe...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 379 ; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 378(3) ;

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Madhya Pradesh.

Advocate Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.

Respondent

Ramlal and ors.

Advocate Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 379 ; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 378(3) ;

Excerpt

.....with other marks such as meredian, merelane delux and merelane premium. see also, fuentes trade marks (1891, 2 ch.,166)." the above observations establish that it is a defence even to an action for passing off or infringement of a trade mark that the plaintiffs (in this case the respondents) marks are an imitation of the mark of another to wit that the respondents had themselves infringed the mark of another. it is thus clear that the principle was applied to an action for infringement of trade mark and passing off. if the purchasers were in such a case to stamp their goods with the trade mark, "a.b. the basis of the ratio is to deny an infringer a right based on the mark or work which infringes the mark or work of another. the respondents in their affidavit in rejoinder denied the allegations that they had infringed the mark of state express 555. there are no averments, much less is there any evidence, to indicate that the respondents' marks/cartons/labels are an imitation of the mark state express 555. it is significant to note that there is no evidence whatsoever to the effect that the third party has used the mark 555 or created the labels/cartons or marks prior to the creation of and use by the respondents of these marks/labels and cartons which may have persuaded the court to come to the conclusion that the respondents had infringed the mark. if it is established that the mark is a well known mark, the mark being used in respect of different goods may make no difference. firstly, whether the principle would apply even if the mark is not established to be a well known mark. secondly, whether the principle would apply if such a mark i.e. not a well known mark, infringed by the respondents is applied to different goods. the goods need not be identical even if a well known mark is not involved. .....of prosecution evidence, therefore no offence is made out against the respondent ramlal and trial court was right in passing the judgment of acquittal.7. i have perused the impugned judgment dated 28.2.95 and evidence recorded by the trial magistrate and found that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which goes to the root of the case. the material document like seizure memo ex.p/2 prepared at 11.30 p.m. but jagdish dubey (pw1) in his statement stated that incident occurred at 2 o'clock in the night. other witness pratap singh (pw4) stated that incident occurred at about 12.00 1.00 at night. this fact itself shows that there is no consistency in the prosecution case and seizure memo which is main basis of prosecution case, is itself remained doubtful. further more, prosecution has also remained failed to establish that so called seized wood was belonging to prohibited area of forest department.8. witness jagdish dubey, beatguard of forest department, admitted in his statement that respondents/accused persons also held tree of teak wood in their field and he also admitted that he can't say that seized wood was belonged to the prohibited area or the area which is belonging to be holding of accused respondents.9. in these facts and circumstances, i am of the view that trial court was right in passing the judgment of acquittal. there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. hence this state appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.10. respondent ramlal is on bail. his bail bond stand discharged.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant/State has filed this appeal against judgment dated 28.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 432/1991 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harda by which the respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is undisputed that the respondent Ramlal S/o Chhanoo Dahiya alongwith other co-accused Manuj S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya, Mishrilal S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya, Sabulal S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya and Chhotelal S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya were tried for offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC and they were acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Harda.

3. The State of Madhya Pradesh prayed for leave to appeal against all the acquitted persons under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but this Court vide order dated 1.12.1995 granted leave to appeal only against the respondent Ramlal S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya.

4. In short, the prosecution case was that on 15.2.87 some employees of Forest Department were sitting in the field of "Tuar Kapas" lying between Khudia and Vikrampur road and at about 11.30 p.m. that some persons were running away with wooden articles. They were chased. Ramlal S/o. Chhanoo Dahiya was caught but other persons were fled away. Roop Singh Rajpoot, Deputy Ranger seized some pieces of Teak Wood from the possession of respondent/accused vide seizure memo Ex.P/2. After usual investigation, accused persons were charge- sheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harda. They were tried and acquitted by impugned judgment dated 28.2.1995 as mentioned herein above.

5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that learned Magistrate has failed to frame proper charges against the respondents/accused persons. He also submits that there are certain discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution but they are minor in nature and do not material or substantially affect the prosecution case, therefore, impugned judgment is illegal and liable to set aside.

6. On the other hand, Shri Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment and vehemently argued that seizure memo Ex.P/2 is itself doubtful. There is a material contradiction in the statement of prosecution evidence, therefore no offence is made out against the respondent Ramlal and trial Court was right in passing the judgment of acquittal.

7. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 28.2.95 and evidence recorded by the trial Magistrate and found that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which goes to the root of the case. The material document like seizure memo Ex.P/2 prepared at 11.30 p.m. but Jagdish Dubey (PW1) in his statement stated that incident occurred at 2 O'clock in the night. Other witness Pratap Singh (PW4) stated that incident occurred at about 12.00 1.00 at night. This fact itself shows that there is no consistency in the prosecution case and seizure memo which is main basis of prosecution case, is itself remained doubtful. Further more, prosecution has also remained failed to establish that so called seized wood was belonging to prohibited area of Forest Department.

8. Witness Jagdish Dubey, Beatguard of Forest Department, admitted in his statement that respondents/accused persons also held tree of teak wood in their field and he also admitted that he can't say that seized wood was belonged to the prohibited area or the area which is belonging to be holding of accused respondents.

9. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that trial Court was right in passing the judgment of acquittal. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Hence this State appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

10. Respondent Ramlal is on bail. His bail bond stand discharged.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur · 2010 Same Parties State of Madhya Pradesh. vs Ramlal and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge G.S. Solanki, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 379 ; Code of Crimin...

Criminal