STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus MOTILAL KANORIA

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 15-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
; 
H 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
MOTILAL KANORIA 
March 15, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. S!KRI, JJ.j. 
Imports and Exports (Control) Act 18 of 1947, s. 5-lmport (Con-
trol) Order No. 17 of 1955, cl. (5)-Goods imported under licence sold 
without permission from Controller-Such sale lVhether an offence. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 531-Error, ommission of irregu· 
larities in complaint-Application of s,ectlon. 
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 granti:d. 
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 lmoorts and Exoorts 
could attach conditions to licences issued 
by him. According to the 
terms of the licence granted to the aforesaid company the good. 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. S (3} of the Order certain conditions \vere 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 objec .. 
tion. He was convicted by the trial Magistrate but the High Court acquit-
ted 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 offence under s. 5 of the. Act of 1947. 
The State 
appealed to tlhis 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 per-
sonally 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 els. 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-CJ 
C.T.S. Pillai v. H. P. Loh/a & Anr. A.I.R. 1957 Cal. 83, referred to. 
East India Conimercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Cal .. 
cutta, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 338, distinguished. 
933 
934 
SVPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1966] 3 S.C.R. 
Stare v. Abdul Aziz (1964] 1 S.C.R. 830, applied. 
A 
(1i) ·1ne fact that the licence was obtained by the re.1pondent while 
... 
the l 9-l8 Order \\'as in operation did not help the respondent as un<lcr 
cl. 12 of the 1955 Order ;1ny licence i-;sued 
under any 
of the 
earlier 
.... 
Orders \\·a'i deen1cd to have been issued 
under 
the corresponding provi-
sions of the 1955 Order. 
·1110 goods under the licence v.·erc, moreover, 
imported and sold after 1955. '!he licence itself ""' revalidated in !956 
and that could only have been done by power derived under cl. 7 of the 
B 
1955 Order. (945 B, DJ 
(iii) The respondent was responsible for the issuance of the licence 
and for the transfer of the goods imported under ic. 
He v..·as therefore 
rcspon<ible principally along with the company. The complaint no doubt 
was not clear as lo whom was really meaot to be proseeulcd blll it de.1-
cribed lhe respondent as an accused 10 which he did 001 objecl at his trial. 
The error. omission or irregularity, if any, in the con1plaint was cur;..1hJe 
C 
under s. ~37 of tho Code uf Criminal Procedure and in the present Cale 
could nol be said 10 have led to a foilure of justice. (946 E-111 
CRrnlNAL APPELLATF JCRtSOICTIO:->: Criminal Appeal No. 108 
of 1964. 
Appeal from the jud;?ment an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.