1965 (8) TMI 10 - SC - Customs

Whether the High Court at Calcutta was right in setting aside the acquittal of the appellants of an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 for the contravention of an order made under Clause 3 of the Exports (Control) Order, 1954 by exporting 75 tons of linseed oil cake without holding a permit authorising the appellants to export the commodity? Held that - Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., if they were the real exporters, would not have drawn a bill for the entire price realisable by them from the overseas buyers in favour of the oil mills because what would be owed to the mills would be only the price for which the oil cake had been sold by them to Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co. In the ordinary course of business Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., were expected to undertake the export of 75 tons of oil cake for making a profit and would not have agreed to pay the oil mills the whole of the price for which they were selling the oil cake to the overseas buyers. This document, therefore, instead of being of any assistance to the appellants affords further support to the prosecution case that the oil cake continued to be the property of the appellants through Shew Sakti Oil Mills and did not become the property of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad and Co., in whose name the export licence stood. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Setting aside the acquittal under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
2. Challenge of conviction on grounds of circumstantial evidence, new case at appellate stage, and lack of proof of notification publication.
3. Export of linseed oil cake without permit under Clause 3 of the Exports (Control) Order, 1954.

Issue 1:
The Supreme Court considered the appeal regarding the setting aside of the acquittal of the appellants under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The High Court of Calcutta had convicted the appellants for exporting 75 tons of linseed oil cake without the required permit. The appellants were acquitted of other charges but convicted under the Act. The defense challenged the conviction based on circumstantial evidence and the introduction of a new case at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court held that challenging factual findings requires grave errors or unreasonableness, which was not demonstrated. Therefore, the challenge to the High Court's findings was not allowed.

Issue 2:
Regarding the challenge of the conviction, the defense raised three grounds, including the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the introduction of a new case at the appellate stage, and the lack of proof of notification publication. The defense conceded that the third point did not apply to the case, leaving only the second point for consideration. The case involved the export of linseed oil cake without the necessary permit, and the defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove certain aspects. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court did not introduce a new case and upheld the conviction based on the evidence presented.

Issue 3:
The case involved the export of linseed oil cake without the required permit under the Exports (Control) Order, 1954. The appellants, through their firms, obtained licenses to export a certain quantity but conspired to export additional quantities under different firm names. The prosecution argued that the exported oil cake belonged to one of the appellants' firms, not the firm named in the export license. The High Court found that the exported oil cake remained the property of the appellants' firm, rejecting the defense's argument that it had been sold to another firm. The court analyzed various documents and evidence to conclude that the appellants unlawfully exported the oil cake without proper authorization, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the High Court's judgment.