9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (8) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad 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. - 194 of 1962 - - - Dated:- 31-8-1965 - K. Subba Rao, J.R. Mudholkar and R.S. Bachawat, JJ. [Judgment per : J.R. Mudholkar, J.]. - What we have to consider in this appeal is 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 (hereafter called the Act) for the contravention of an order made under Clause 3 of the Exports (Control) Order, 1954 (hereafter called the Order) by exporting 75 tons of linseed oil cake without holding a permit authorising the appellants to export the commodity.The appellants were charged before Mr. F.M. Sanyal, Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta for two offences in addition to the one we have mentioned. Those offences were under Sections 417/34 and 471/465 of the Indian Penal Code. They were, however, acquitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would, according to the notification, be eligible to a quota up to 75 tons. The applicants for the licence had also to furnish certain information to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. 4.Messrs Palriwala Bros., which is a partnership firm, of which the two appellants are members, controlled and practically owned four firms, one of which is "Messrs Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd.". These four firms being in the categories of persons eligible to obtain licences under the notification M/s. Palriwala Bros., could, therefore, legally export 4 x 75 tons, i.e., 300 tons of linseed oil cake to foreign countries. They applied for licences in the names of these firms and it would appear that they eventually secured them. According to the prosecution, not being content with the quota they might obtain legally, they conspired to obtain licences to export an additional quantity in the name of other firms and in pursuance of the conspiracy of fact obtained export licences from the licensing authority in the names of the following four firms : M/s. Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad Co., M/s. East India Commercial Corporation, M/s. Shree Narayan Co., The International Overseas Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nur Muhammad Co. and, therefore, there was no forgery....." According to Mr. Purshottam the case of the prosecution was that whatever the appellants did was without the knowledge or consent of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad Co., and the High Court having negatived the prosecution case in this behalf made out a new case for the prosecution by saying that even so the appellants were liable to be convicted on the ground that the oil cake exported continued to be the property of Shew Sakti Oil Mills or Palriwala Brothers. No doubt, charge No. 3 reads thus : "That you between 4th July, 1955 and 26th August, 1955 along with one S.N. Palriwala since absconding at Calcutta in contravention of Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act dishonestly and fraudulently exported certain goods to wit - linseed oil cakes under the cover of export licence Exhibit 19(4) and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and within may cognizance." No doubt also that the prosecution had alleged that the shipping bills for export were either forged or were false documents and that this case has been negatived both by the Presiden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was in fact they who took all the necessary steps right from the stage of making an application for a licence upto the preparation of the shipping documents though according to them they did so as agents of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad Co., except exhibits 16/1/1/ and 16/1/3 which, according to them, were signed by one M. Hanifi who was a representative of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad Co. Upon a consideration of the evidence the High Court has, however, said that the signature reading : "M. Hanifi, for Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad Co.," is not that of any representative of that firm. Relying upon the evidence of P.W. 3 Girija Sankar Saha the High Court has held that at the relevant time there was no employee of that firm named M. Hanifi in Calcutta and that upon a comparison of certain writings of S.N. Palriwala, the third partner of the firm of Palriwala Brothers, who is said to be absconding, it has found that the signature of M. Hanifi appeared to have been forged by S.N. Palriwala. If, in fact there was any substance in the contention of the appellants that `Shew Sakti Oil Mills had sold the linseed cake which was exported under the licence in question to Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
