79. PENALITY FOR SELLING GOODS TO WIHCH A FALSE TRADEMARK OR FALSE TRADEDE DESCRIPTION IS APPLIED. - Any person who sells, or exposes for sale, or has in his possession for sale or for any purpose of trade or manufacture, any goods or things to which any false trade mark or false description is applied or which, being required under Sec. 117 to have applied to them an indication of the country or place in which they were made or produced or the name and address of the manufacturer or the person for whom the goods are manufactured, are without the indication so required, shall, unless, lie proves,-
(a) That, having taken all reasonable precautions against committing an offence against this section, he had at the time of the committed of the alleged offence no reason to suspect the genuineness of the trade mark or trade description or that any offence had been committed in respect of the goods; and
(b) That, on demand by or on behalf of the prosecutor, he gave all the information in his power with respect to the person from whom he obtained such goods or things, or
(c) That otherwise he had acted innocently, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both:
Provided that when the offence against this section is in relation to goods or any package containing goods which are drugs as defined in Cl. (b) of Sec. 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) or “food” as defined in Cl. (v) of Sec. 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. by anyone outside the territory by post, as has been done by the plaintiff, for the purpose of present proceedings, but that would not be sufficient to give cause of action for the suit. Defendant had admittedly advertised his product in a local Bikaner newspaper and no deliberate act of the defendant could be said to be committed within this jurisdiction. If the newspaper had wider publication or was freely sold in other jurisdictions or if the defendant had given the insertion with the intention of a wider publicity, the position would have been different. On the existing material, prima facie, it would be doubtful if the Delhi High Court would have jurisdiction to deal with this cause of action.
| 