Pathak C. J. (Actg.)- Accused respondents Rishimani Gupta and Biswanath Gupta were charged U/Ss- 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act read with section 34, Indian Penal Code for applying false trade-mark or deceivably similar mark "MORTON". "MOHAN" which is identical with or similar to the trade-mark "MORTON" of M/s. C&E (Morton (India) Ltd. without any assent from the proprietor of the trade-mark MORTON" and were in possession of die block, machine, plates; wrappers etc, for the purpose of falsifying in furtherance of common intention, of both the respondents. They were also charged that on or about 23.3.72 the respondents sold or expo­sed for sale and possessed for sale for the purpose of trade and manufacture of Lecto Bon Bon, toffees, Lozenges, etc, to which the said false trade-mark was applied in furtherance of common intention of both the respondents in order to deceive the said M/s. C.&.E. Morton (India) Ltd. 2. On a complaint lodged by the Branch Manager of the Company, the investigation was started and ultimately they were charge-sheeted under the aforesaid two sections of law. The trial Court framed charge and after completion of the trial considering the evidence on record convicted both the respondents under the aforesaid sections of law and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under each court in default R. I. for two months each under each count. The accused-respondents being aggri­eved preferred an appeal and the appellate Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant. 3. A brief narration of the facts leading to the present appeal appears from the judgment of the appellate Court. The complainant Shri Balkrishna Sharma, Branch Manager of the C&E Morton (India) Ltd. lodged an ejahar stating that M/s C.&E. Morton (India) Ltd is the owner and proprietor of the registered Trade-Name and Mark "MORTON" and the said Company is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of con­fectionary, Including toffees, lozenges under the said trade-name and mark "MORTON" since 1923. It has been alleged that taking anvantage of the reputation and quality of the aforesaid phoducts of the said company, the accused-respondents who are the proprietors and partners of M/s. Ashok confectionary Dibrugarh bad entered into a conspiracy to pass 08° in the market to unwary public confectionary viz. Lactobonbon, toffees, lozenges etc. It has been alleged that taking anvantage of the reputation and quality of the aforesaid phoducts of the said company, the accused-respondents who are the proprietors and partners of M/s. Ashok confectionary Dibrugarh bad entered into a conspiracy to pass 08° in the market to unwary public confectionary viz. Lactobonbon, toffees, lozenges etc. of inferior quality wrapped in wrappers "MORTON", MOHAN" which so nearly resembles the trade-mark of "MORTON" of the complainant-Company as to deceive or so cause confusion with wrongful object to trap the unwary purchasers into purchasing the goods in the belief that they are buying the goods of the said Company. On these allegations the proceedings started and the trial ended in convictions and sentences of the accused-respondents, as aforesaid, which was later on set aside by the learned appellate court. It is against this acquittal, the complainant has come up in appeal before this Court. 4. We have gone through the evidence as well as the judgment and order of the learned appellate Court. It comes to our notice that there was no material to show that the accused-respondents by any means passed-off their goods to be that the complainant-Company. The only things that were seized from the premises of the accused-respondents, were some wrap­pers with the inscription of "MORTON" and ''MOHAN". We have very carefully gone through the evidence of PW 1 Balkrishna Sarma, Branch Manager of the complainant Company who lodged the compliant, but we do not find any material to show that the respondents anywhere tried to pass-off or to falsify or to deceive the customers by any goods displayed or stocked for sale with same die or mark similar to those of the complainant-Company. The evidence of P.W. 1 discloses that he Instructed the police what to seize and what not to seize and the police seized some of the wrappers with the above inscriptions namely "MORTON", "MOHAN" at the behest of the complainant. Material Ext. 5 are some of the wrappers seized from the pre­mises of the accused-respondents. It is curious to find from the evidence of P.W. 1 that he wanted the police to believe that material Ext. 5 was spurious. Material Ext. 5 are some of the wrappers seized from the pre­mises of the accused-respondents. It is curious to find from the evidence of P.W. 1 that he wanted the police to believe that material Ext. 5 was spurious. On an over-all consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant we do not find any material that there was any intention of the respondents to pass off any of their manufactured goods to be that of the complainant-Company. The law as regards the infringement of the trade-mark is no longer rea integra. Mere imitation does not amount to offence unless there is an infringement of a patent or copyright or an attempt to pass goods as those of another dealer or manufacturer either by using a false trade mark or description likely to deceive purchasers by deliberate imitation of a genuine mark or description or by falsely giving out goods as goods of some other dealer or manufacturer. 5. On scrutiny of the evidence we do not find that the respondents have in any way made infringement of the trade-mark of the complainant Company. At any rate, the prosecution has failed to substantiate the allegation of the infringement of trade­marks by the respondents. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed as such.