Chandra Gopal, and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Chandra Gopal, and ors. vs State of Madhya Pradesh.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur Decided Jul 06, 2010

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911810

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/911810
Court: Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur High Court
Judge: J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Decided On: Jul 06, 2010
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1463 OF 1995.
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 - Section 498-A ;

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chandra Gopal, and ors.

Advocate Shri S.K.Gangrade, Adv.

Respondent

State of Madhya Pradesh.

Advocate Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Section 498-A ;

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 the respondent submitted that the finding of conviction has not been assailed, however, it is the discretion of the court because under section 498-a of ipc jail sentence is not mandatory. it is further contended by him that looking to the fact that the offence under section 498-a of ipc is against the society, the reasonable amount of fine may be imposed against the appellants so that they may not be in a position to repeat such offence.8. having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the appellants have not assailed the finding of conviction and only a prayer has been made to reduce the sentence to the extent already undergone and to increase the fine. however, in the facts of the present case in which the incident is of the year 1993 and 17 years have already expired, the appellant no.2 shall now be senior citizen, and appellant no.1 has also crossed her young age. it is further brought to the notice that the appellants have tasted with the jail life for about two days and under section 498-a of ipc the jail sentence is not mandatory.9. considering all these arguments, the opinion of this court is that if the amount of fine from rs.1000/- each is increased against each of the appellants to the extent of rs.10,000/- and which shall be paid by the appellants within a period of three months, the jail sentence already undergone would be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case.10. accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. the finding of conviction of appellants as recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment is hereby upheld and the sentence already undergone by the appellants be treated as sufficient subject to deposit of amount of fine of rs.10,000/- in total by each of the appellants within a period of three months from today. it is made clear that if the amount of fine is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the appellants shall serve remaining part of the sentences as directed.....

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.10.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No.139/94 convicting the appellants under Section 498-A of IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further two months simple imprisonment.

2. As per prosecution story, the incident took place on 19/4/1993 and FIR was lodged by the complainant- Ramesh Chandra (PW-2) on 29/5/1993 stating that his daughter Maya Bai who was married with Chandra Gopal, has died in other than natural circumstances. The demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment has been alleged against appellants, namely, Chandra Gopal and Leela Bai (mother-in-law of the deceased). It is said that the marriage was solemnized about four years ago from the date of incident and due to demand of dowry, the deceased committed suicide consuming some poisonous substance.

3. After investigation challan was filed registering the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of IPC. The Trial Court has framed the charges under Section 304-B and in alternative under Section 306 of IPC and also under Section 498-A of IPC.

4. The accused persons abjured their guilt and put their defence that they have been falsely implicated in the case and for this reason FIR has been lodged by a delay of approximately one and half month.

5. The Trial Court after considering the statement of Ramesh Chandra (PW- 2) and Kokila Bai (PW-3), mother of the deceased, recorded a finding that the charges under Sections 304-B and 306 of IPC are not established beyond reasonable doubt but from the allegations as alleged the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is made out against the appellants, however, convicted them for the said charge and directed to undergo the sentence as mentioned herein above.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has made an endeavour to satisfy this court that the conviction of appellants under Section 498-A of IPC is not warranted but after arguing the case for some time it is fairly contended by him that looking to the date of incident i.e. 19/4/1993, a period of 17 years has already expired, however, by maintaining the finding of conviction, the sentence as directed by the Trial Court may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants increasing the amount of fine which shall meet the ends of justice.

7. On the other hand, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the finding of conviction has not been assailed, however, it is the discretion of the Court because under Section 498-A of IPC jail sentence is not mandatory. It is further contended by him that looking to the fact that the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is against the society, the reasonable amount of fine may be imposed against the appellants so that they may not be in a position to repeat such offence.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the appellants have not assailed the finding of conviction and only a prayer has been made to reduce the sentence to the extent already undergone and to increase the fine. However, in the facts of the present case in which the incident is of the year 1993 and 17 years have already expired, the appellant No.2 shall now be senior citizen, and appellant No.1 has also crossed her young age. It is further brought to the notice that the appellants have tasted with the jail life for about two days and under Section 498-A of IPC the jail sentence is not mandatory.

9. Considering all these arguments, the opinion of this Court is that if the amount of fine from Rs.1000/- each is increased against each of the appellants to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and which shall be paid by the appellants within a period of three months, the jail sentence already undergone would be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The finding of conviction of appellants as recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment is hereby upheld and the sentence already undergone by the appellants be treated as sufficient subject to deposit of amount of fine of Rs.10,000/- in total by each of the appellants within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that if the amount of fine is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the appellants shall serve remaining part of the sentences as directed by the Trial Court and the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be at liberty to issue warrant of arrest against the appellants to send them jail to serve out the remaining part of the sentences.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur · 2010 Same Parties Chandra Gopal, and ors. vs State of Madhya Pradesh. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge J.K. Maheshwari, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Section 498-A ;

Criminal