Case Analysis: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Hafiz Mohammad Ismail and Hafiz Jawed Ali
Case Details
Case name: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Hafiz Mohammad Ismail and Hafiz Jawed Ali
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: K.N. Wanchoo, Syed Jaffer Imam, J.C. Shah
Date of decision: 09/02/1960
Citation / citations: 1960 AIR 669
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 129-130 of 1957; Criminal Revisions Nos. 118 and 119 of 1955; Criminal Appeals Nos. 511 and 512 of 1954
Neutral citation: 1960 SCR (2) 911
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal (special leave)
Source court or forum: Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench)
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The investigation of Lever Brothers Limited uncovered large‑scale manufacture and sale of soaps bearing the Sunlight and Lifebuoy trade‑marks in Lucknow, particularly in Yahiaganj. On 19 May 1953 a police raid seized a substantial quantity of soaps wrapped in labels that closely resembled the genuine trade‑marks. The respondents, Hafiz Mohammad Ismail and Hafiz Jawed Ali, were charged with selling the soaps under sections 482 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code. A Magistrate found that the labels resembled the genuine ones and held that the resemblance was such that a purchaser might be deceived; consequently, the respondents were convicted under both sections. The conviction was affirmed by the Sessions Judge.
The respondents appealed to the Sessions Judge, whose dismissal of the appeal was upheld. They then filed revisions before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench). The High Court acquitted them of the charge under section 482 and, characterising the wrappers and labels as “colourable imitations,” also acquitted them of the charge under section 486. The State of Uttar Pradesh applied for a certificate of appeal, which was denied, and subsequently obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court entertained Criminal Appeal Nos. 129‑130 of 1957, arising from the High Court’s judgment dated 13 July 1956 and the Sessions Judge’s judgment dated 31 March 1959.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was called upon to determine whether the wrappers and labels affixed to the respondents’ soaps were “counterfeit” within the meaning of Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code and, if so, whether the respondents could be convicted under Section 486. The precise controversy centred on the High Court’s description of the wrappers as “colourable imitations” rather than “counterfeit” items. The State contended that the High Court had misapplied Section 28 by ignoring its explanations, which dispense with the requirement of an exact imitation and create a rebuttable presumption of deceptive intent when the resemblance is likely to deceive. The respondents maintained that the differences in detail precluded a finding of counterfeiting and that the High Court’s view should stand.
Contentions of the State were that the wrappers and labels caused the soaps to resemble the genuine trade‑marks, that such resemblance was likely to deceive the public, and that the statutory presumption of intent under Explanation 2 to Section 28 therefore applied. The State also urged that the High Court had failed to address jurisdiction, limitation, and the statutory defences enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 486, and that these issues required remand.
Contentions of the respondents were that the wrappers and labels were only colourable imitations and did not satisfy the definition of “counterfeit” under Section 28; consequently, they argued that the respondents were not liable under Section 486 and were entitled to acquittal on both charges.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code defined “counterfeit” as the act of causing one thing to resemble another with the intention of practising deception or with knowledge that deception was likely to be practised. Explanation 1 clarified that an exact imitation was not essential; a close resemblance that might deceive sufficed. Explanation 2 created a rebuttable presumption that, when such a resemblance existed, the accused intended deception or knew that deception was likely, unless the contrary was proved. Section 482 dealt with counterfeiting of trade‑marks, and Section 486 prescribed punishment for selling or exposing goods with a counterfeit trade‑mark. The legal test derived from Section 28 required (i) that the accused caused one thing to resemble another, and (ii) that the resemblance was of a character likely to deceive a purchaser, thereby invoking the presumption of intent or knowledge under Explanation 2.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court examined the statutory definition of “counterfeit” in Section 28 and its explanations. It held that the two‑fold test was satisfied: the respondents had caused the wrappers and labels to resemble the genuine Sunlight and Lifebuoy trade‑marks, and the resemblance was such that a purchaser might be deceived, as found by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. The Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on the term “colourable imitation” without assessing the likelihood of deception, noting that Explanation 1 expressly allowed non‑exact imitations to fall within the ambit of counterfeiting when the resemblance was deceptive.
Having found that the requisite resemblance existed, the Court applied the presumption of intention or knowledge under Explanation 2, because the State had not disproved it. Consequently, the Court concluded that the wrappers and labels were counterfeit within the meaning of Section 28 and that the respondents were liable under Section 486 for selling goods with a counterfeit trade‑mark. The Court affirmed the High Court’s acquittal under Section 482, as that issue had not been contested, but set aside the High Court’s acquittal under Section 486.
The Court also observed that the High Court had not addressed ancillary questions of jurisdiction, limitation, and the applicability of the statutory defences enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 486. Accordingly, it remanded the matters to the High Court for determination of those points.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s acquittal under Section 486, and affirmed the conviction for the offence of selling goods with a counterfeit trade‑mark. The acquittal under Section 482 remained in force. The Court ordered that the cases be remanded to the Allahabad High Court for fresh determination of the pending issues relating to jurisdiction, limitation, and the applicability of the statutory defences under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 486. In sum, the Court held that the respondents had sold soaps with counterfeit wrappers and labels, satisfying the statutory requirements of Sections 28 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code.