http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOTILAL KANORIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/03/1966

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. SHAH, J.C. SIKRI, S.M.

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1586            1966 SCR  (3) 933  CITATOR INFO :  R          1971 SC1283  (12)  RF         1973 SC 106  (146)

ACT: Imports  and Exports (Control) Act 18 of 1947,  s.  5-Import (Control) Order No. 17 of 1955, cl. (5)-Goods imported under licence  sold without permission from  Controller-Such  sale whether an offence. Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 537-Error,  commission of irregularities in complaint-Application of section.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent  was the director of a company  and  also  a partner  in the firm managing it.  On behalf of the  company he  made  an  application for an import  licence  under  the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947, and in May 1955  the licence was granted.  At that time the grant of licence  was governed  by an Order issued in 1948 issued under s.  32  of the Act, and under that Order the Controller of Imports  and Exports  could attach conditions to licences issued by  him. According  to  the  terms  of the  licence  granted  to  the aforesaid company the goods imported under-the licence  were to be employed for the company’s own use.  In December  1955 the  Imports  (Control)  Order No. 17 of  1955  was  passed. Under  cl. 5(3) of the Order certain conditions were  deemed to  be  part  of  every licence and  under  cl.  5(4)  every licencee  was  enjoined  to observe  the  condition  of  the licence.   In 1956 the respondent secured a revalidation  of the  licence  issued to the company.   Thereafter  when  the goods  arrived they were sold by the respondent  to  another party.  A complaint was filed against the respondent and the company for an offence under s. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control)  Act  1947  read  with  cl.  (5)  of  the  Imports (Control) Order 1955.  The respondent faced the trial as  an accused  and  participated in the  proceedings  without  any objection.  He was convicted by the trial Magistrate but the High Court acquitted him on the ground that at the time when the  transaction of sale was entered into i.e.  in  December 1956, breach of a condition of licence did not constitute an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

offence  under s. 5 of the Act of 1947.  The State  appealed to  this Court.  The questions that fell  for  determination were  :  (i)  whether by disposing  of  the  imported  goods without permission any offence was committed; and (ii) if so whether the respondent was personally liable. HELD:     (i)  Although  s.  5 of the  Imports  and  Exports (Control)  Act, 1947 did not, before its amendment in  1960, specially  provide  that breach of a  condition  of  licence would  be  deemed to be a breach of  the  Imports  (Control) Order,  yet by virtue of cls. 5(3) and (4) read with cl.  12 of  the  Imports  (Control) Order 1955  the  transfer  of  a licence  was a breach of the said order and  constituted  an offence.   No  distinction  could validly  be  made  in  the circumstances of this case between transfer of a licence and transfer of goods imported under it. [945 E-G; 946 B-C] C.T.S.  Pillai v. H. P. Lohia & Anr.  A.I.R. 1957  Cal.  83, referred to. East  India  Commercial Co. Ltd.  Calcutta v.  Collector  of Customs, Calcutta, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 338, distinguished. 934 Stare v. Abdul Aziz [1964] 1 S.C.R. 830, applied. (ii) The  fact  that  the  licence  was  obtained  by   ’the respondent  while  the 1948 Order was in operation  did  not help  the respondent as under cl. 12 of the 1955  Order  any licence issued under any of the earlier Orders was deemed to have  been issued under the corresponding provisions of  the 1955  Order.   The goods under the licence  were,  moreover, imported  and  sold  after 1955.   The  licence  itself  was revalidated  in 1956 and that could only have been  done  by power derived under cl. 7 of the 1955 Order. [945 B, D] (iii)     The respondent was responsible for the issuance of the licence and for the transfer of the goods imported under it.  He was therefore responsible principally along with the company.   The complaint no doubt was not clear as  to  whom was  really  meant  to be prosecuted but  it  described  the respondent  as an accused to which he did not object at  his trial.  The error, omission or irregularity, if any, in  the complaint  was curable under s. 537 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure and in the present case could not be said to  have led to a failure of justice.  [946 E-H]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 108  of 1964. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated September 4,  1963 of  the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 396  of 1962. Debrata Mookerjee, B. L. Mehta, R. H. Dhebar and B.    R. G. K. Achar, for the appellant. D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. This is an appeal by certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution, against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated September 4, 1963 by which  the conviction  of the respondent Motilal Kanoria under s. 5  of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the sentence of  fine of Rs. 200/(in default simple imprisonment for  one month)  imposed  by the Presidency  Magistrate,  6th  Court, Calcutta, were set aside and an acquittal was entered.   The facts  of the case are not in controversy and may  therefore be  stated  briefly.   Motilal Kanoria  was  a  director  of Lachminarayan  Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,  Calcutta.   The Company  was  managed  by  a firm of  the  name  of  Mukhram

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

Lachminarayan and Motilal Kanoria was one of the partners of the firm.  The Company and the Managing Agents had a  common address in Calcutta.  Motilal Kanoria used to sign on behalf of  the Managing Agents and also generally to deal with  the affairs of the Company.  All transactions in this case  were by Motilal Kanoria and he had signed the documents to  which reference will be made presently. In  February  1955 the Government of India approved  of  the proposal  of the Company to manufacture hackle  and  combing pins  and sanctioned the import of plant and  machinery  for the 93 5 purpose.   The Company was permitted to apply to  the  Chief Controller of Imports, New Delhi for a licence.  The  letter of Government is Ex. 2 dated February 4, 1955.  On  February II.  1955  the Company applied to the  Chief  Controller  of Imports,  New Delhi, on the proper application form, for  an import licence.  In that application the Company stated that the machinery was to be installed or used at their Mills  at Konnaggar,  Eastern  Railway  (Ex. 1).  On May  26,  1955  a licence was issued (Ex. 3).  The licence read as follows--               "This   licence  is  issued  subject  to   the               conditions  to the goods licensed as  detailed               in  the Policy Book for the current  licensing               period  and  any public notices  that  may  be               issued in this behalf from time to time.               LICENCE NO. 035925               Counterfoil               Not  available  for  foreign  exchange  unless               authorised by Reserve Bank of India.                            IMPORT TRADE CONTROL                        (Valid for all India Ports)               (Not  transferable  except under a  letter  of               authority  from the authority who  issued  the               licences or from any Import Trade Controller).               Messrs.  Shree Luchminarain Jute Manufacturing               Co. Ltd., of 59, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta-               1.  are hereby authorised to Import the  goods               of which particulars are given below:-               1.    Country   from  which  consigned:   West               Germany.               2.    Quantity & Description Machinery as per                of goods:                  list attached                                          for the manufacture                                         of Hackling &                                          combing pins.               3.    Approximate value C.I.F. Rs.  1,88,000/-               (Rupees                One Lakh and Eighty eight thousand only)               4.  Period  of  shipment:          Revalidated                                        upto 31st May 1957.               5.    Name & Address of M/s.  Schunacher Metal               Manufacturer    Shipper    or            Works               Aktiengesche Suppliers:   Ilacheft,    Aachen,               Germany.                936               6.    Limiting factor for purpose of  clearing               through               Customs: Value               7.     Name     of     actual     user      in               Self                                   India               This  licence is granted under  Government  of               India,  late Commerce Department  Notification               No.  23.   ITC/43 dated the 1st July  1943  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

             continued in force by the Imports and  Exports               (Control) Act 1947 18 of 1947) and subject  to               the rules and orders issued thereunder.   This                             licence  is  also  without  prejudice  to   the               applications  of  any  other  prohibitions  or               regulations  affecting the importation of  the               goods  which  may be in force at the  time  of               their arrival.               Sd. Illegible               Section Officer               26-5-55               for  Chief Controller of Imports and  Exports.               26-5-1955.                 Issued from file No. L. IV/49 (11) CG/55.               (Space   for  Endorsements  by  Import   Trade               Control               Authorities)               This   licence  is  issued  with  an   initial               validity  period of one year from the date  of               issue.   It will be revalidated at  or  before               the end of the said period of one year, for  a               further   period   of  two   years,   provided               satisfactory  evidence  is produced  that  the               order  for the goods has been accepted by  the               foreign suppliers and a firm contract is  made               within the initial period of one year.  In  no               case, however, will the validity period extend               beyond three years from the date of issue."               In  the covering letter, which was  sent  when               forwarding  the licence, the Chief  Controller               said inter alia,-               (3).  The licence is granted to you subject to               the following conditions:-               (a)   In case the project involves any capital               issue  and  if  such  capital  issue  is   not               sanctioned   the   licence   is   liable    to               cancellation.               (b)   That  if any sanction to the project  is               necessary  under  the  laws  of  the  Central,               Provin-                                    937               cial or a State Government the same should  be               obtained  and  the position reported  to  this               office by the licensee; in the absence of such               sanction being received the licence is  liable               to cancellation.               4.    The licence is liable to cancellation if               particulars   as  to  progress  of   time   in               accordance  with  the  detailed   instructions               contained  in  the accompanying slip  are  not               furnished.               5.    The  Government  do  not  guarantee  for               supply   of   raw   materials   required   for               manufacture of the goods. On June 19, 1956 the Company asked for "revalidation" of the licence and the licence was extended to May 31, 1957.   This extension  is mentioned in the licence above  reproduced  at No.  4.  On December 13, 1956 the Company  entered  into  an agreement  (Ex. 25) with Shalimar Wood Products (P) Ltd.  of Calcutta  for  the  sale of the machinery  imported  by  the Company.   The sale, it is submitted, was at  invoice  price and there was no profit.  On the arrival of the machinery in February  of  the  following  year  the  Company  authorised Shalimar  Wood  Products to receive the  shipping  documents

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

from  the Company’s bankers and to clear it from the  Docks. The  plant and machinery were then cleared by the Agents  of the  Shalimar Wood Products and the latter took them with  a view to installing them in their own factory. On  July 30, 1958 the Company wrote a letter (Ex. 7) to  the Chief Controller of Imports informing him that owing to  the death  of  their  director  of Sawal  Ram  Kanoria  who  was interested  in the production of the said pins  the  Company was  compelled to sell the imported plant and  machinery  to Shalimar Wood Products. (P) Ltd., Calcutta and asked for the approval  of  the  transaction.   The  Chief  Controller  of Imports  in reply pointed out that permission ought to  have been  obtained before the transfer and that the Company  had apparently committed a contravention of the import  licence. A report was made to the police for investigation and  later a  complaint under S. 5 of the Import and Exports  (Control) Act,  1947  was filed in the Court of the  Chief  Presidency Magistrate,  Calcutta,  by the Deputy  Chief  Controller  of Imports   and  Exports.   Lachminarain  Jute   Manufacturing Company  was  named  as the  accused  "represented  by  Shri Motilal  Kinoria".   In  paragraph 2 of  the  complaint  the Company was stated to be the accused but in later paragraphs of  the complaint Motilal Kanoria was named as the  accused. In the prayer it was requested that the court should  summon "accused  Motilal Kanoria representing the Company  and  the Managing Agents" to answer the charge of a breach of the pCI/66-14 938 conditions of the licence which constituted an offence under s.  5  of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act,  1947  read with  clause  (5) of the Imports (Control) Order No.  17  of 1955, dated December 17, 1955.  Motilal Kanoria appeared  at the trial, was questioned as an accused, pleaded not  guilty and stood the trial.  He does not appear to have objected to being arraigned as an accused person a point he took  later in the High Court and has taken before us.  The  prosecution examined a large number of witnesses and filed documents  to prove  the  above facts none of which is  now  denied.   The Presidency   Magistrate,  6th  Court,  Calcutta,   convicted Kanoria under s. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947  for  contravention  of  clause  (5)  of  the   Imports (Control)  Order,  1955 and sentenced him to a fine  of  Rs. 200/- or simple imprisonment for one month.  On revision the High  Court acquitted him but certified the case as fit  for appeal to this Court and the present appeal is the result. As the prosecution is in respect of an offence under s. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, we shall  begin by  examining  what  the ingredients of  that  offence  are. Under the scheme of that Act there is a power to prohibit or restrict  imports  and  by s. 3 the  Central  Government  is enabled  to  make  provision,  by  order  published  in  the Official Gazette, for prohibiting, restricting or  otherwise controlling   them.   Section  5  prescribes   penalty   for contravention of an order.  The section, as amended by Act 4 1960, is set down here               "5.  If any person contravenes or attempts  to               contravene,  or abets a contravention of,  any               order  made or deemed to have been made  under               this Act or any condition of a licence granted               under  any  such  order,  he  shall,   without               prejudice  to any confiscation or  penalty  to               which he may be liable under the provisions of               the Sea Customs Act, 1878, as applied by  sub-               section  (2) of Section 3, be punishable  with               imprisonment  for a term which may  extend  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

             one year, or with fine, or with both".               (The  words  underlined  were  introduced   in               1960). The  complaint in this case was filed after this  amendment. Different  orders  at  different times were  passed  by  the Central  Government under S. 3 and a word may be said  about the  orders  of 1943 and 1948, although on the date  of  the transfer of machinery (December 13, 1956) only the order  of 1955 was in force. The  first order was made under sub-rule (3) of rule  84  of the  Defence of India Rules in force in  1943  (Notification No.  23  I.T.C./ 43 dated 1st July, 1943).  That  order  was general   and  there  was  no  provision   authorising   the imposition of conditions in the licence, the breach of which would be deemed to be a breach of the order. 939 In  1948 another order was issued under s.  3  (Notification No.  2  I.T.C.  dated 6th March,  1948).   It  provided  for imposition of conditions but the provisions of the order did not  indicate that any particular condition would be  deemed to be included in a licence if not expressly included.   The provisions of that order may be read here:               "In  exercise of the powers conferred by  sub-               section  (1) and sub-section (3) of section  3               of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947               (18  of  1947),  the  Central  Government   is               pleased to make the following order namely:-               (a)   Any  officer  issuing  a  licence  under               clauses (viii)to (xiv) of the notification  of               the Government of India in the late Department               of  Commerce No. 23 I.T.C./43, dated  the  1st               July, 1943, may issue the same subject to  one               or more of the conditions below:               (i)   that  the goods covered by  the  licence               shall  not be disposed of or  otherwise  dealt               with  without  the written permission  of  the               licensing   authority  or  any   person   duly               authorised by it;               (ii)  that the goods covered by the licence on               importation  shall not be sold or  distributed               at  a  price  more  than  that  which  may  be               specified  in any directions attached  to  the               licence;               (iii) that  the applicant for a licence  shall               execute  a bond for complying with  the  terms               subject to which a licence may be granted;               (iv)  that   the   licence   shall   not    be               transferable  except  in accordance  with  the               permission  of  the licensing authority  or  a               person duly authorised by it;               (v)   that   such  other  conditions  may   be               imposed   which   the   licensing    authority               considers   to  be  expedient  from  the   ad-               ministrative  point of view and which are  not               inconsistent  with the provisions of the  said               Act.               (b)   Where  a license is found to  have  con-               travened   the   order or  the   terms   and               conditions  embodied  in  or  accompanying   a               licence, the               940               appropriate  licensing authority or the  Chief               Controller  of  Imports may notify  him  that,               without  prejudice to any penalty to which  he               may  be liable under the Imports  and  Exports

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

             (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947), or any other               enactment for the time being in force he shall               either  permanently or for a specified  period               be  refused any further licence for Import  of               goods."               By  this  order the  licensing  authority  was               given  the  power to include conditions  in  a               licence.               On  December  7,  1955  an  order  was  issued               (Notification  No.  17/55  dated  December  7,               1955).   It consolidated all the rules in  one               place  and by clause 12 read with Schedule  IV               repealed  the  earlier  two  orders  and  some               others  but  while effecting  this  repeal  it               added a saving clause--               "Provided  that  anything done or  any  action               taken,  including  any  appointment  made   or               licence  issued  under any  of  the  aforesaid               Orders,  shall be deemed to have been done  or               taken  under  the corresponding  provision  of               this Order.  "               The  order of 1955 also included  several  new               provisions  regarding conditions which may  be               introduced in licences and others which  would               be  deemed  to be so  introduced.   Conditions               relevant here may be noticed.               "5. Conditions of Licence.               (1)   The   licensing  authority   issuing   a               licence  under this Order may issue  the  same               subject to one  or  more  of  the   conditions               stated below:-               (i)   that  the goods covered by  the  licence               shall  not be disposed of, or otherwise  dealt               with,  without the written permission  of  the               licensing   authority  or  any   person   duly               authorised by it;               (ii)  that the goods covered by the licence on               importation  shall not be sold or  distributed               at  a  price  exceeding  that  which  may   be               specified  in any directions attached  to  the               licence;               (iii) that  the applicant for a licence  shall               execute  a bond for complying with  the  terms               subject to which a licence may be granted.               (2)               941               (3)   It shall be deemed to be a condition  of               every such licence, that:               (i)   no  person shall transfer and no  person               shall  acquire by transfer any licence  issued               by the licensing authority except under and in               accordance with the written permission of  the               authority which granted the licence or of  any               other person empowered in this behalf by  such               authority.               (ii)  that the goods for the import of which a               licence  is granted shall be the  property  of               the  licensee  at  the  time  of  import   and               thereafter upto the time of clearance  through               Customs.               (iii) the  goods  for the import  of  which  a               licence is granted shall be new               goods unless otherwise stated in the               licence.               (4)   The  licensee  shall  comply  with   all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

             conditions  imposed  or deemed to  be  imposed               under this clause." Conditions  5 (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) and 5 (3) (i) are  the same  as conditions (a) (i) to (iv) of the 1948 Order but  5 (3) (ii) and (iii) and 5 (4) are new.  Conditions 5 (3) (i), (ii)  and (iii) become a part of every licence  and  further the  licensee has to comply with all the conditions  imposed or deemed to be imposed under clause 5. The effect of  these clauses  has  to be considered in relation  to  the  licence granted  in this case but in this context the provisions  of clause  7 are also relevant and the clause may be  set  down here:               "7. Amendment of Licence.--               The licensing authority may, of its own motion               or  on application by the licensee, amend  any               licence  granted  under  this  Order  in  such               manner  as  may  be  necessary  to  make  such               licence conform to the provision of the Act or               this Order or any other law for the time being               in force or to rectify any errors or omissions               in  the licence; Provided that  the  licensing               authority  may,  on request by  the  licensee,               amend  the  licence in any  manner  consistent               with the Import Trade Control Regulations." 942 Much  of the argument in this case is based on the dates  of these notifications and of the amendment of the section 5 of the  Act, considered in relation to the dates on  which  the several  facts  in  this case took  place.   The  Presidency Magistrate applied the Order of 1955 because the licence was "revalidated"  on June 27, 1956, and according to him,  this was  apparently done under powers derived from clause  7  of that  Order.   According to the  Presidency  Magistrate  the Company had imported the plant and machinery for its own use (vide  No.  7  of  the licence)  and  this  was  an  express condition  of  the licence.  He also pointed  out  that  the licence  was expressly made subject to such restrictions  as might  be  imposed from time to time and the Order  of  1955 imposed  conditions which made the transfer of machinery  an offence  being a breach of subclause (3) clause (5)  of  the 1955 Order.  The High Court held that s. 5 of the Act as  it stood  on  December 13, 1956 when the  alleged  offence  was committed,  did not make breach,of a condition of a  licence an  offence  and,  therefore, there  was  no  offence.   The Division Bench relied principally on the observations of Sen and Mitter JJ. in C. T. S. Pillai v. H. P. Lohia and Anr.(1) to the following effect :               "It  is  clear, therefore,  that  the  section               penalises only contravention of any order made               or  deemed  to have been made under  the  Act.               But the question is whether contravention of a               condition  imposed by a licence  issued  under               the Act or issued under a statutory order made               under the Act is also an offence under section               5,  Imports and Exports (Control)  Act,  1947.               Although license is granted under a  statutory               order made under the Act and conditions may be               imposed in the license under another statutory               order  made under the Act, it is difficult  to               hold that the license or the conditions in the               license  amount to an order made or deemed  to               be  made under the Act.  Notification No.  23.               I.T.C./43 dated 1-7-1943 merely provides  that               no  goods  shall  be  imported  except   goods               covered  by  special  license  issued  by   an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

             authorised   officer.   Notification  No.   2-               I.T.C./48   dated   6-3-1948   authorises    a               licensing  officer  to  impose  one  or   more               conditions  prescribed  in that  order  and  a               licensing  officer,  therefore  may  impose  a               condition   in  view  of  the   provision   of               Notification  No.  2-I.T.C./48.  But  if   the               licensee contravenes the condition imposed  by               the license it can hardly be said that he  has               contravened the order under this Act, that is,               the  Notification No. 2-I.T.C./48.  The  order               No.  2-I.T.C./48 does not directly impose  any               duty  but  it  gives power  to  the  licensing               officer  to  impose certain  conditions.   But               contravention of condition im-               (1)   A. I. R. 1957 Cal. 83.               943               posed  by the licensing officer  cannot  prima               facie  be  regarded as  contravention  of  the               notified  order  itself.... When  there  is  a               special  license  covering certain  goods  and               there  is a condition imposed in  the  special               license  it cannot be said that by  breach  of               the  condition imposed in the special  license               it  cannot  be  said that  by  breach  of  the               condition  there has been any breach of  Order               231    I.T.C./43   or   of   the    subsequent               Notification  No.  2-I.T.C./  48.  It  may               be  mentioned that the  difficulty  apparently               was  realised  in Pakistan and  therefore  the               Imports  and Exports (Control) Act, 1947,  was               first amended by an ordinance and then by  the               Imports  and Exports (Control) Act,  1950,  of               Pakistan.   Section 3(2) of that Act  provides               that  ’no goods of the  specified  description               shall  be  imported  or  exported  except   in               accordance with the conditions of a license to               be issued by the Chief Controller or any other               Officer  authorised  in  this  behalf  by  the               Central  Government.   The  penal  section  5,               refers  not only to contravention of an  order               or  Rule  made under the Act but also  to  the               contravention of any condition imposed by  the               License........  It is clear that  unless  the               penal    section    itself    includes     the               contravention of a condition of the license as               an  offence, it is not possible to  hold  that               the licensees by merely committing breach of a               condition  imposed by a license has  committed               the offence which consists in contravention of               an order made or deemed to be made under  this               Act.   In this view, therefore,  although  the               reasons  given by the learned Magistrate  have               not  been  considered by us as  sound,  it  is               clear  that  the prosecution of  the  opposite               party  under  s.  5  of  Imports  and  Exports               (Control) Act, 1947, must fail".               These  observations  were referred to  by  the               majority decision of this Court in East  India               Commercial Co. Ltd., Cakutta v.     Collector               of Customs, Cakutta (1) in the following words               :-               before  a division Bench of the Calcutta  High               Court, consisting of Mitter and Sen. JJ.,  and               the  learned Judges, by their  judgment  dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

             March,3,  1955 dismissed the revision  holding               that  there had been no contravention  of  the               order made or deemed to be made under the Act.               The  learned Judges construed s. 5 of the  Act               and held that the said section penalised  only               a contravention of an order made or deemed  to               have been made under the said Act, but did not               penalise               (1)   [1963] 3 S.C.R. 338 at 356, 369, 372.               944               the contravention of the conditions of licence               issued  under  the  Act  or  issued  under   a               statutory  order  made  under  that  Act,  and               dismissed the revision.               It  will be seen from this order that it  does               not  provide  for a condition in  the  licence               ’that  subsequent  to the  import  the  goods               should not be sold.  Condition (v) of cl.  (a)               only  empowers  the  licensing  authority   to               impose  a  condition  from  an  administrative               point  of view.  It cannot be  suggested  that               the   condition,   with  which  we   are   now               concerned,  is  a condition  imposed  from  an               administrative  point  of view, but  it  is  a               condition.   which  affects  the   rights   of               parties.               It   follows   from   the   above   that   the               infringement of a condition in the licence not               to sell the goods imported to third parties is               not      an      infringement      of      the               order.................. The Division Bench considered that the earlier Calcutta case was approved.  Following the above observations the  learned Judges  applied  them  to this case.  They  noted  that  the breach of a condition became an offence only after the  17th of March, 1960 when Act 4 of 1960 was passed and as it could not  be an offence before, even if the Order of 1955  deemed certain conditions to be a part of the licence, their breach was not an offence.  They- distinguished the decision of the Bombay  High Court ill State v. Abdul Aziz(1) on the  ground that  the  licence in that case was granted  on  January  2, 1956,  that  is to say, after the coming into force  of  the Order  of 1955.  The Division Bench therefore held  that  no offence  was  committed.  Adverting also to  the  fact  that there  was confusion as to which of the two-the  Company  or Motilal Kanoria-was the accused the learned Judges held that the  Presidency Magistrate was further wrong  in  convicting Kanoria  although  the prosecution was  really  against  the Company. The  questions  that arise in this case are really  two  and they are :               (a)   whether  by disposing of the  plant  and               machinery  without permission an  offence  was               committed; and               (1) A.L.R. 1962 Bom. 24.                945               (b) if so, by whom ? In  our  judgment both these questions must be  answered  in favour  of the State of West Bengal.  It was  overlooked  in the  High Court that under the proviso to clause 12  of  the Order  of  1955 the licence, although  granted  before  that Order  was  brought into force, came under its  terms.   The words of that proviso refer to a ’licence issued’ under  any of  the  earlier orders as something done  or  action  taken under  the corresponding provision of the 1955  Order.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

corresponding  conditions were those we have extracted  from the Order of 1955 and set down earlier.  By the terms of the licence (item No. 7) the licensee undertook to use the goods himself.    He   further  bound  himself   by   "any   other prohibitions or regulations affecting the importation of the goods  which may be in force at the time of  their  arrival" and  not to transfer the licence "except under a  letter  of authority from the authority who issued the licence or  from any Import Trade Controller".  The goods arrived long  after the Order of 1955 came into force.  By the operation of  the revalidation  under  clause  7 and  the  conditions  of  the licence,  even as they were, the provisions of the Order  of 1955 were attracted.  As clauses 5(3) and (4) became a  part of  the licence, their breach was a breach of the Order  and an offence was, therefore, committed. It was decided in Abdul Aziz v. State of Maharashtra(1)  (on appeal  from the case sub. nom.  State v. Abdul Aziz of  the Bombay High Court) that if the licence was issued under  the Order  of 1955, the provisions of sub-cl. (4) of cl. 5  made it  obligatory  upon  the licensee to comply  with  all  the conditions  imposed or deemed to be imposed under  clause  5 and  that  the contravention of any condition of  a  licence amounted  to the contravention of the provision  of  sub-cl. (4)  of  cl.  5  of  the  Order  and  consequently  to   the contravention  of  the  order made  under  the  Imports  and Exports  (Control)  Act and therefore  the  licensee  became liable  to  the  penalty under s. 5 of the  Act.   The  only distinction  between Abdul Aziz’s case and this lies in  the fact that the licence in the former was given after, and  in this  case before, the coming into force of Order  of  1955. But this distinction loses significance when the  provisions of  clause 12 of the Order of 1955 are read  in  conjunction with  the  licence  itself.  Between them  they  bring  into operation  clause  5  of the Order of 1955  and  the  result reached  by  this Court in Abdul Aziz’s  case  obtains  here also.  The fact that the licence was revalidated  presumably under  clause 7 of the Order of 1955 further fortifies  the above conclusion.  The submission of Mr. D. N. Mukherji that this  extension was under the last paragraph of the  licence is  not  the whole of the matter.  A power might  have  been reserved by that paragraph but it could only be (1)  [1964] 1 S.C.R. 830. 946 exercised by the licensing authority after December 7,  1955 by  virtue of the Order of 1955 because all previous  orders were repealed.  There was thus an offence under S. 5 of  the Imports and Exports (Control) Act for the breach of clause 5 of  the  Order  of  1955.  Mr. D. N  ’  Mukherjee  seeks  to distinguish between the transference of the licence and that of  the machinery.  This argument is not acceptable  to  us. The licence created its own conditions that the goods  would be  used  by  the  licensee and the  transfer  of  goods  in circumstances is tantamount to transfer of the licence.   It would be refining matters too finely to distinguish  between the  transfer of the licence and the transfer of the  goods. Even  if a distinction can be drawn the licence was for  the actual  use  of  the licensee.  When  the  goods  were  sold condition  No. 7 was broken and so would be a breach of  the 1955 Order which had come into force. The  final question is whether Kanoria can be said  to  have committed any offence and whether he was prosecuted at  all. The section as amended in 1960 makes the abetment of contra- vention  an offence.  If the amendment applied  because  the prosecution  was  after the amendment (a point we  need  not decide)  Kanoria  would  be definitely guilty  at  least  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

abetment.  In our opinion it is not necessary to decide this point because Kanoria is guilty as a principal offender  and the section as it originally stood, must apply to him.   The section  said "if any person contravenes any order  made  or deemed  to have been made.......... "he shall be  punishable with  imprisonment for a term which may extend to one  year, or with fine, or with both." The question is whether Kanoria was such a person.  Kanoria was responsible for the issuance of the licence and for the transfer of the goods covered  by the  licence.  He wrote every document connected with  these two  matters.   He was, therefore,  responsible  principally along with the Company.  In fact the Company could not  have committed  the offence of contravention if Kanoria  had  not acted as he did.  Abetment, of which the section now speaks, is  an act of a different kind.  The act of Kanoria was  not abetting  any  one else but one which by itself led  to  the contravention  of the Order of 1955 and he  was,  therefore, liable principally.  The complaint no doubt was not clear as to  who was really meant to be prosecuted but  it  described Kanoria  as an accused.  Under the Explanation to S. 537  of the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure no  error,  commission  or irregularity in the complaint should have led to a  reversal of  the finding that Kanoria was guilty unless there was.  a failure of justice.  The objection that he was not named. as an accused throughout the complaint and that he was thus not an  accused could have been raised at the trial but  it  was not.   On the contrary Kanoria entered a plea of not  guilty on his own behalf and also stood examination as an  accused. It is obvious 94 7 that  he was regarded as the accused and he  understood  his own  position.   The objection could not be  entertained  in revision in the High Court as it was belated and the defect, if  any,  had  not occasioned a failure  of  justice.   This ground also has no force. For  the above reasons we are satisfied that the High  Court erred in interfering with the conviction of the  respondent. We  accordingly  allow the appeal, set aside  the  acquittal ordered  by the High Court and restore the conviction  under s.  5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, recorded  by the Presidency Magistrate together with the fine of Rs.  200 or simple imprisonment for one month. Appeal allowed. 948