Can the appellate court’s finding of colourable imitation be challenged through a revision petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a small manufacturing unit in a northern city produces a popular household cleaning powder that is marketed under a well‑known brand name, and the proprietor of the unit sells the product in a local market using packaging that mimics the official brand’s logo, colour scheme and wording, differing only in minor typographical variations.

The investigating agency files an FIR alleging that the accused has contravened the provisions dealing with counterfeit trade‑marks. The prosecution contends that the packaging is a “counterfeit” within the meaning of the statutory definition, because the resemblance is such that an ordinary purchaser is likely to be deceived. The accused, however, argues that the packaging is merely a “colourable imitation” and that there is no intention to deceive, invoking the statutory exemptions available under the relevant offence.

At the trial court, the magistrate examines the seized packaging and, relying on expert testimony, concludes that the similarity is sufficient to mislead a consumer. Accordingly, the magistrate convicts the accused under the offence of selling goods bearing a counterfeit trade‑mark. The Sessions Judge affirms the conviction, and the accused files an appeal before the Sessions Court, seeking reversal on the ground that the resemblance does not satisfy the legal test for “counterfeit”.

The appellate court, after reviewing the evidence, characterises the packaging as a “colourable imitation” and acquits the accused, holding that the prosecution has not proved the requisite intention or knowledge of deception. The State, dissatisfied with the acquittal, approaches a senior counsel who advises that the ordinary factual defence of lack of intent is not the only avenue available at this stage, because the appellate court’s judgment rests on an erroneous interpretation of the statutory definition and the presumption of intent under the explanatory clause.

The counsel explains that the appellate court’s decision effectively bypasses the statutory provision that creates a rebuttable presumption of intention where the resemblance is likely to deceive. By treating the packaging merely as an imitation without assessing the likelihood of deception, the court has failed to apply the law correctly. Consequently, the appropriate procedural remedy is not a fresh factual defence but a challenge to the appellate court’s legal reasoning.

Given that the appellate court sits within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the counsel recommends filing a revision petition under the Criminal Procedure Code. A revision is the correct remedy when a lower court’s decision appears to be perverse or based on a misapprehension of law, and it allows the High Court to examine the correctness of the legal principles applied without re‑litigating the factual matrix.

The accused engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who drafts a revision petition, meticulously outlining how the appellate court misapplied the definition of “counterfeit” and ignored the statutory presumption of intent. The petition also cites precedents where High Courts have set aside similar acquittals on the ground that the lower courts failed to consider the likelihood of deception.

Simultaneously, the State’s legal team, comprising several lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, prepares a supporting affidavit from the investigating agency, reinforcing the expert analysis that the packaging was designed to create confusion among consumers. They argue that the High Court must intervene to ensure that the statutory scheme intended to protect trademark owners and consumers is not rendered ineffective by a narrow interpretation of “imitation”.

The revision petition is filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a direction to set aside the appellate court’s acquittal and to remand the matter for a fresh determination of the legal issue. The relief sought includes quashing the acquittal, directing the Sessions Court to re‑examine the case in light of the correct legal standard, and, if necessary, ordering the accused to stand trial again on the original charges.

In the petition, the counsel emphasizes that the procedural route of revision is indispensable because the accused has already exhausted the ordinary appeal mechanism. The High Court, possessing supervisory jurisdiction, can correct the error of law without infringing the principle of finality of judgments, as the revision is premised on a jurisdictional flaw rather than a mere disagreement over facts.

The petition also highlights that the accused’s reliance on the “colourable imitation” defence is insufficient, as the statutory framework expressly provides that a presumption of intent arises when the resemblance is likely to deceive. The High Court is thus urged to apply the explanatory clause, which shifts the burden of proof to the accused to rebut the presumption, a step that the appellate court omitted.

By filing the revision, the parties ensure that the matter is addressed at the appropriate judicial forum, where the nuanced interpretation of trademark law and the statutory presumption can be thoroughly examined. The High Court’s intervention will also safeguard the public interest, preventing the circulation of goods that could mislead consumers.

Should the Punjab and Haryana High Court grant the revision, it will have the authority to set aside the acquittal, remand the case for fresh proceedings, and, if it deems fit, direct the accused to be taken into custody pending the re‑trial. This procedural remedy aligns with the legal principles distilled from the earlier Supreme Court analysis, where the higher judiciary intervened to correct a misapplication of the definition of “counterfeit”.

Thus, the fictional scenario mirrors the core legal issue of counterfeit trade‑mark infringement, the procedural misstep of the lower appellate court, and the necessity of invoking a revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court as the proper avenue for redress. The narrative demonstrates why an ordinary factual defence is inadequate at this stage and why the specific remedy of a revision petition is the logical and legally sound course of action.

Question: Why is a revision petition the correct procedural remedy for the State after the appellate court’s acquittal, and what are the legal thresholds that must be satisfied for the Punjab and Haryana High Court to entertain such a petition?

Answer: The factual backdrop shows that the accused was first convicted by a magistrate, affirmed by a Sessions Judge, and subsequently acquitted by the appellate court on a ground of legal interpretation. Because the ordinary appeal route has been exhausted, the State cannot file another appeal on the same points. Under criminal procedure, a revision is available when a subordinate court’s decision appears to be perverse, illegal, or based on a misapprehension of law. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, may intervene without re‑examining the entire factual matrix, focusing instead on whether the appellate court correctly applied the statutory definition of “counterfeit” and the explanatory presumption of intent. The legal threshold requires the petitioner to demonstrate that the lower court committed a jurisdictional error or a patent misinterpretation of law, not merely a disagreement over facts. In this case, the appellate court’s judgment rests on the premise that similarity does not equate to deception, thereby ignoring the statutory presumption that a resemblance likely to deceive creates a rebuttable inference of intent. The State’s revision petition must therefore articulate how the appellate court misapplied the definition, failed to consider the explanatory clause, and consequently rendered a decision that is legally untenable. If the High Court is persuaded, it can set aside the acquittal, remit the matter for fresh determination of the legal issue, or direct a re‑trial. The practical implication is that the State preserves its enforcement objective, while the accused faces the prospect of renewed proceedings. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will structure the petition to meet these thresholds, emphasizing the error of law rather than re‑litigating evidence, thereby aligning the remedy with the procedural safeguards embedded in criminal jurisprudence.

Question: How does the statutory definition of “counterfeit” differ from the concept of “colourable imitation,” and why is this distinction pivotal to the State’s claim that the accused’s packaging should attract criminal liability?

Answer: The factual narrative presents packaging that mimics a well‑known brand’s logo, colour scheme and wording, differing only in minor typographical variations. Under the relevant trade‑mark offence, “counterfeit” is defined as causing one thing to resemble another with the intention of practising deception or with knowledge that deception is likely. The explanatory clause creates a presumption of intent where the resemblance is such that an ordinary purchaser may be misled. By contrast, “colourable imitation” is a descriptive term indicating that the imitation is not exact but bears a superficial similarity. The legal significance lies in the fact that “colourable imitation” does not, by itself, satisfy the statutory test for criminal liability unless the resemblance reaches the threshold of likely deception. The State argues that the packaging’s similarity is sufficient to trigger the presumption of intent, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut it. The appellate court’s characterization of the packaging merely as a “colourable imitation” ignored this presumption, effectively nullifying the statutory mechanism designed to protect trademark owners and consumers. The distinction is pivotal because if the packaging is deemed “counterfeit,” the accused must demonstrate a valid exemption or prove lack of intent, whereas a finding of “colourable imitation” could permit a factual defence without confronting the statutory burden. This legal nuance determines whether the prosecution’s case survives a legal challenge. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would emphasize that the expert testimony on consumer confusion satisfies the likelihood test, thereby converting the imitation into a counterfeit in the statutory sense, and would argue that the appellate court’s omission of this analysis constitutes a misinterpretation of the law.

Question: In what way does the explanatory presumption of intent operate in this case, and how did the appellate court’s failure to apply it affect the legal correctness of its acquittal?

Answer: The explanatory presumption of intent functions as a statutory inference that when a product’s packaging closely resembles a protected trade‑mark, the law presumes the seller intended to deceive or knew that deception was likely. This presumption is rebuttable; the accused must produce evidence to show lack of intent or reliance on a statutory exemption. In the present facts, the investigating agency’s expert testified that the packaging was designed to create confusion among ordinary purchasers, satisfying the “likely to deceive” criterion. The appellate court, however, treated the resemblance as merely a “colourable imitation” and concluded that the prosecution had not proved the requisite intention, thereby sidestepping the statutory inference. By not applying the presumption, the court effectively shifted the evidential burden back onto the prosecution, contrary to the legislative scheme. This procedural misstep renders the acquittal legally infirm because the court ignored a mandatory legal step that determines the burden of proof. The High Court, upon revision, will examine whether the appellate court’s omission amounts to a jurisdictional error. If it finds that the presumption should have been applied, the court may set aside the acquittal and remand for a determination on whether the accused successfully rebutted the inference. The practical implication for the accused is that the presumption, once applied, imposes a heavier evidential load, potentially leading to conviction if the defence cannot overcome it. For the State, correcting this error restores the statutory balance intended to deter counterfeit trade‑mark violations. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court will stress that the appellate court’s failure to invoke the presumption constitutes a misinterpretation of law, justifying the revision.

Question: What are the possible outcomes that the Punjab and Haryana High Court can order if it finds merit in the revision petition, and how would each outcome impact the accused’s custodial status and the State’s enforcement objectives?

Answer: Upon finding that the appellate court erred in law, the High Court has several remedial options. It may set aside the acquittal and direct the Sessions Court to rehear the case, applying the correct legal standard of “counterfeit” and the presumption of intent. In such a scenario, the accused could be taken into custody pending the fresh trial, especially if the High Court deems there is a risk of tampering with evidence or a likelihood of repeat offences. Alternatively, the High Court could remand the matter for a limited rehearing focused solely on the legal issue, leaving the factual findings of the magistrate and Sessions Judge intact. This limited rehearing would preserve the evidentiary record while correcting the legal error, potentially leading to a conviction without a full retrial. A third possibility is that the High Court may quash the acquittal and impose a direction that the accused must prove a statutory exemption, thereby shifting the evidential burden back onto the accused. Each outcome advances the State’s enforcement objectives by ensuring that counterfeit trade‑mark violations are penalised and that the statutory deterrent remains effective. For the accused, a remand to custody could affect personal liberty and business operations, while a limited rehearing might limit exposure to prolonged detention. The High Court may also impose conditions such as bail with stringent terms if it believes the accused does not pose a flight risk. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise the accused to prepare evidence of lack of intent and possible exemptions, while the State’s counsel would focus on reinforcing the likelihood of deception. The practical implication is that the High Court’s decision will shape the subsequent procedural posture, either culminating in a conviction that upholds trademark protection or, less likely, a reaffirmation of the acquittal if the revision is dismissed.

Question: Considering the strategic landscape, why might the accused choose to retain a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court alongside a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, and how could this dual representation affect the presentation of the defence in the revision proceedings?

Answer: The factual matrix involves a complex interplay of evidentiary findings, statutory interpretation, and procedural nuances that span both the investigative agency’s expert testimony and the appellate court’s legal reasoning. Retaining a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court provides the accused with counsel experienced in handling criminal revisions, familiar with the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, and adept at framing arguments that focus on misapplication of law rather than re‑litigation of facts. Simultaneously, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, who may have previously represented the accused at the trial and appellate stages, brings intimate knowledge of the evidential record, the expert reports, and the defence’s factual narrative. This dual representation enables a coordinated strategy where the Chandigarh counsel crafts the legal challenge to the presumption of intent and the definition of “counterfeit,” while the Punjab and Haryana counsel prepares supplemental affidavits, cross‑examines the prosecution’s expert, and highlights any procedural irregularities that occurred earlier. The combined expertise can strengthen the defence’s position by ensuring that the High Court receives a comprehensive package: a precise legal argument on statutory interpretation, supported by factual affidavits and expert rebuttals. Moreover, having counsel familiar with both jurisdictions can anticipate procedural objections, manage filing requirements, and respond swiftly to the court’s directions. The practical effect is a more robust defence that leverages the strengths of each lawyer, potentially increasing the chances of a favorable revision outcome, such as a remand for limited rehearing or even a reinstatement of the acquittal if the High Court finds the revision petition lacking merit. This strategic approach underscores the importance of specialized legal representation in high‑stakes criminal revision matters.

Question: Why does the factual matrix of the counterfeit packaging case make a revision petition the proper remedy before the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than any other forum?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused was first tried before a magistrate, then appealed to the Sessions Court, and finally obtained an acquittal from the appellate court that sits within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Under the doctrine of supervisory jurisdiction, a High Court has the authority to entertain a revision when a subordinate court’s decision appears to be perverse or based on a misapprehension of law. The appellate court’s judgment, in this scenario, rested on an interpretation that the packaging constituted only a “colourable imitation” and therefore dismissed the statutory presumption of intent embedded in the definition of “counterfeit”. Because the error is legal – the failure to apply the explanatory clause that creates a rebuttable presumption of deception – the High Court, not a lower court, is the appropriate forum to correct it. Moreover, the High Court’s power to issue writs, such as a writ of certiorari, allows it to set aside the lower court’s order without re‑examining the factual evidence, which aligns with the need to address the legal misinterpretation. The accused therefore engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who can frame the revision petition to highlight the statutory misreading, cite precedents where similar errors were corrected, and request that the High Court either quash the acquittal or remand the matter for a fresh legal determination. The involvement of lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition complies with procedural requisites, such as proper annexures, verification, and service on the State. This procedural route is indispensable because the ordinary appeal mechanism has been exhausted, and the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is the only avenue left to rectify the legal flaw without infringing the principle of finality of judgments. Consequently, the revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the logical and legally sanctioned remedy given the facts and the nature of the alleged error of law.

Question: In what way does relying solely on the factual defence of lack of intent fall short at the revision stage, and why must the accused focus on legal error instead?

Answer: At the revision stage, the High Court’s jurisdiction is confined to examining whether a lower court committed an error of law, jurisdiction, or a procedural irregularity, not to re‑assess the factual matrix that has already been adjudicated. The accused’s factual defence – that there was no intention to deceive – was the cornerstone of the appellate court’s acquittal. However, the appellate judgment ignored the statutory presumption that intent arises when the resemblance is likely to deceive an ordinary purchaser. This presumption shifts the evidential burden to the accused to rebut it, a legal principle embedded in the explanatory clause of the offence. Because the appellate court failed to apply this legal standard, the error is not factual but doctrinal. A revision petition must therefore articulate how the lower court misapplied the definition of “counterfeit” and omitted the operation of the presumption of intent, rather than re‑presenting evidence of packaging similarity or consumer confusion. The High Court will not entertain fresh evidence or re‑evaluate expert testimony; it will scrutinise the legal reasoning. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is crucial, as counsel can craft arguments that pinpoint the misinterpretation, reference authoritative case law, and demonstrate that the appellate court’s conclusion was perverse in law. By focusing on the legal error, the accused aligns the petition with the High Court’s limited jurisdiction, increasing the likelihood that the court will intervene to correct the misapplication of law. This approach also respects the principle that factual disputes are to be resolved at trial, while legal standards guide the correct application of the statute. Hence, a factual defence alone is insufficient at this stage; the remedy lies in challenging the legal reasoning that led to the acquittal.

Question: Why might an accused in this trademark infringement dispute seek the assistance of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, and what practical advantages does such counsel provide?

Answer: Although the revision petition is filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused may still seek a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court for several pragmatic reasons. First, the counsel based in Chandigarh is geographically proximate to the High Court’s principal seat, facilitating easier access to court registries, filing counters, and personal appearances for oral arguments. Second, lawyers in Chandigarh High Court often possess specialized experience in intellectual‑property criminal matters and are familiar with the procedural nuances of filing revisions, including the preparation of annexures, verification statements, and supporting affidavits from the investigating agency. Their local practice network can expedite service of notice on the State and coordinate with the State’s team of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, ensuring that procedural compliance is met without delay. Third, the presence of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can aid in seeking interim relief, such as a direction for the accused to be taken into custody pending the revision, or a stay on any further prosecution steps, by leveraging the court’s procedural rules on interim orders. Moreover, counsel can advise on the strategic timing of the petition, anticipate objections from the State’s lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, and prepare counter‑arguments to pre‑empt any jurisdictional challenges. The practical advantage lies in having a practitioner who can navigate the local court culture, file the petition within prescribed timelines, and represent the accused effectively during any hearing, thereby enhancing the prospects of a successful revision. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court thus complements the legal strategy formulated by the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, ensuring that both substantive legal arguments and procedural execution are handled adeptly.

Question: What are the step‑by‑step procedural requirements for filing a revision petition in this context, and how do they ensure that the High Court can properly address the alleged legal error?

Answer: The procedural roadmap begins with the preparation of a revision petition that sets out the factual background, identifies the specific legal error – namely the failure to apply the statutory presumption of intent – and articulates the relief sought, such as quashing the appellate court’s acquittal or remanding the case. The petition must be verified and signed by the accused or his authorised representative, typically a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, who ensures compliance with the High Court’s filing format. Next, the petition is filed in the appropriate registry of the High Court, accompanied by the certified copy of the appellate judgment, the FIR, and any relevant annexures, such as the expert report on packaging similarity. After filing, a copy of the petition must be served on the State, usually through its team of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, who are then required to file a counter‑affidavit within the stipulated period. The High Court may then issue a notice to the State, inviting its response to the alleged error of law. If the State opposes the revision, the court may schedule a hearing where both parties present oral arguments. During the hearing, the counsel for the accused can emphasize the misinterpretation of the explanatory clause, cite precedents where similar revisions were entertained, and request that the court exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to correct the legal mistake. The High Court may also consider granting interim relief, such as directing the accused to remain in custody if the court deems it necessary for the administration of justice. Finally, the court delivers its order, which may either set aside the acquittal, remit the matter to the Sessions Court for re‑examination of the legal issue, or dismiss the petition if it finds no error. This step‑by‑step process, overseen by lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court and coordinated with lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, ensures that the High Court’s review is confined to the legal dimension, preserving the finality of factual findings while providing a mechanism to rectify statutory misapplication.

Question: How does the alleged misinterpretation of the statutory definition of “counterfeit” by the appellate court create a viable ground for a revision petition and what procedural steps must the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court follow to ensure the High Court can examine the legal error without re‑litigating the factual matrix?

Answer: The appellate court’s judgment rests on a factual description of the packaging as a “colourable imitation” and rejects the statutory presumption of intent that attaches when the resemblance is likely to deceive. This creates a clear misapplication of law because the definition of “counterfeit” requires both a resemblance and a likelihood of deception, the latter triggering a rebuttable presumption. The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction to correct such errors of law through a revision petition. The first step for the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is to draft a petition that precisely identifies the legal issue, namely the failure to apply the explanatory clause that shifts the burden of proof to the accused. The petition must attach the appellate judgment, the original FIR, the expert report, and the trial court findings that established the likelihood of deception. It should also include a concise statement of facts to show that the factual matrix is settled and that the revision is not a substitute for an appeal on facts. The next procedural requirement is to serve a copy of the petition on the State and the prosecution, inviting them to file a response. The petitioner may also seek interim relief such as a stay on any execution of the acquittal if the State fears the accused might be released and continue the alleged trade‑mark infringement. The revision petition must be filed within the period prescribed for such applications, typically thirty days from the receipt of the appellate order, unless the court grants condonation. By focusing solely on the legal misinterpretation, the petition respects the High Court’s limited scope of review and avoids the pitfall of re‑arguing evidence that has already been examined. If the High Court is persuaded, it can set aside the appellate decision, direct a re‑examination of the legal standard, and remand the matter to the Sessions Court for a fresh determination consistent with the statutory definition.

Question: What evidentiary challenges arise from the expert testimony on packaging similarity and how can the accused’s counsel effectively contest the reliability and relevance of that evidence in the revision proceedings?

Answer: The expert report forms the backbone of the prosecution’s claim that the packaging is likely to deceive consumers. In the revision stage the accused’s counsel can attack the report on two fronts: the methodology used to assess similarity and the qualifications of the expert. The first line of attack is to request the High Court to scrutinise whether the expert employed a systematic comparative analysis, such as side‑by‑side visual comparison, colourimetric testing, or consumer perception surveys. If the report relies merely on a visual impression without objective metrics, the counsel can argue that the conclusion is speculative. The second avenue is to question the expert’s credentials, experience in trademark analysis, and any potential bias arising from being retained by the investigating agency. The counsel may also introduce independent evidence, such as market research showing that consumers can distinguish the accused’s product from the genuine brand, thereby undermining the presumption of deception. In the revision petition the accused should attach a counter‑affidavit from an independent specialist who can testify that the typographical differences, colour shades, and logo placement are sufficient to avoid confusion. The petition must also highlight any procedural irregularities in the collection of the seized packaging, for example failure to preserve the original condition or chain of custody gaps, which could affect the integrity of the evidence. By focusing on the reliability and relevance of the expert testimony, the accused’s lawyer can persuade the High Court that the presumption of intent should not arise, or at the very least that the prosecution has not met the burden of proving a likelihood of deception. This strategy does not require a re‑trial on facts but seeks to dismantle the legal foundation of the State’s case.

Question: In light of the pending revision petition, what are the risks to the accused regarding custody and bail, and how should the defence balance the need for personal liberty with the possibility of the High Court ordering a re‑trial?

Answer: The revision petition does not automatically stay the effect of the appellate acquittal, but the High Court may issue interim orders if it perceives a risk that the accused could abscond or tamper with evidence. The defence must therefore file an application for bail or a stay of any execution of the acquittal, emphasizing that the accused is not a flight risk, has cooperated with the investigating agency, and that the factual issues have already been adjudicated. The counsel should also highlight that the accused’s continued liberty does not prejudice the State’s ability to prosecute, especially because the primary contention is a legal interpretation rather than a factual dispute. If the High Court grants a stay, the accused remains out of custody while the revision is decided. However, the court may also direct that the accused be taken into custody pending a fresh trial if it believes the alleged offence is serious and the presumption of deception remains viable. To mitigate this risk, the defence can propose a conditional bail with sureties, regular reporting to the police station, and surrender of passport. The petition should also request that any custodial order be deferred until after the High Court’s decision on the revision, arguing that the accused has already served time during the earlier trial phases and that further detention would be punitive. By presenting a balanced approach that safeguards personal liberty while acknowledging the State’s interest in enforcing trademark protection, the defence can persuade the court to favour liberty pending the final determination of the legal issue.

Question: How does the statutory rebuttable presumption of intent operate in this context and what strategic arguments can the accused employ to shift the burden of proof back to the prosecution during the revision?

Answer: The statutory framework creates a presumption of intent when the resemblance between the accused’s packaging and the genuine mark is such that an ordinary purchaser is likely to be deceived. This presumption is not conclusive; the accused may rebut it by showing lack of knowledge or intention to deceive. In the revision the defence can argue that the appellate court erred by treating the presumption as satisfied without any evidentiary basis. The strategic line is to demonstrate that the prosecution has not produced any direct evidence of the accused’s knowledge, such as communications, marketing plans, or internal documents indicating an intent to mislead. The defence can also rely on the fact that the accused’s packaging contains distinct typographical variations that a reasonable consumer would notice, thereby negating the likelihood of deception. By submitting a detailed comparative analysis of the packaging, the accused can show that the resemblance falls short of the threshold required to trigger the presumption. Moreover, the defence may invoke any statutory exemptions that apply, for example if the accused can prove that the packaging was used for a different market segment or that there was no commercial advantage sought. The revision petition should therefore request that the High Court scrutinise whether the presumption was properly invoked and whether the burden was correctly shifted. If the court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the requisite likelihood of deception, the presumption collapses and the accused is cleared of the intent element, leading to a reversal of the acquittal.

Question: What specific steps should lawyers in Chandigarh High Court take to support the State’s revision petition, particularly regarding the preparation of affidavits and the presentation of expert analysis to reinforce the likelihood of deception claim?

Answer: Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court representing the State must focus on strengthening the evidential foundation that the packaging is likely to deceive. The first step is to procure a detailed affidavit from the investigating agency that outlines the seizure process, the chain of custody, and the observations made by the officers at the time of the raid. This affidavit should also recount any consumer complaints received, any market surveys conducted, and the rationale for invoking the statutory presumption. The next step is to attach a comprehensive expert report prepared by a recognised trademark analyst who can articulate, in technical terms, how the colour scheme, logo placement, and typographical style create a probability of confusion among ordinary buyers. The expert should include visual comparisons, measurements of colour similarity, and, if possible, data from consumer perception tests. The lawyers must ensure that the affidavit and expert report are notarised and comply with the evidentiary standards of the High Court. In the revision petition they should explicitly link the expert’s conclusions to the statutory presumption, arguing that the likelihood of deception is established beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the counsel should anticipate the defence’s arguments by pre‑emptively addressing potential challenges to the expert’s methodology, for example by citing the expert’s prior experience and certifications. By presenting a well‑structured evidentiary package, the lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can persuade the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the legal error lies in the appellate court’s dismissal of the presumption, thereby justifying the reversal of the acquittal and the ordering of a fresh trial.