SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 406

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. BHARGAVA AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, Appellant
Versus
K. T. Kosalram and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1967, D/- 29-9-1970.
Advocates appeared
R. N. Sachthey. Advocate, for Appellant. M/s. H. R. Gokhale and M. K. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocates, Vineet Kumar and Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Advocates with them), (for No. 1) and A. V. Rangam, Advocate, (for. No. 6.), for Respondents.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120 –B - Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 - Section 6 and 3 - Companies Act, 1956 - Import Contro Order, 1955 - Company - Imports and Exports - Import licence - Accused nos. 1 and 2 who are brothers were both directors of Company, accused no. 1 being Director-in-charge attending to its day to day management and administration - He was also authorised to operate its accounts with banks - Primary object of Company was publication of a Tamil daily newspaper "Dina Seithi" - Accused no. 3 was the Manager at Messers Press located in same building in which Company was located - Wife of accused no. 1 was the sole proprietress of this Press - She had given power of attorney to her husband for operating bank account of her Press - Daily newspaper used to be printed at this press - Accused no. 5 was a broker engaged in the business of negotiating sale and purchase of printing machinery - Between he was working as Chief Salesman of Printers House - Company, as per letter sent by accused no. 1, informed the Chief Controller that one rotary printing press had been imported and the other was expected to arrive – Held, argument that the High Court having acquitted the respondents on a view which is a possible view this Court should not convert acquittal into conviction under Article 136 of Constitution has not appealed to Court - View of High Court does not seem to be sustainable on statutory language and on import Control Policy of which respondents were fully aware - respondents are guilty of malpractice s and of abuse of import licence with the object of making money – Court however, think that in view of the fact that this litigation has been pending since a long time it would meet ends of justice if Court impose merely fine and do not sentence anyone to imprisonment - Final result is that order of High Court is set aside and accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are convicted under Section 120-B, I. P. C. and Section 5 of Imports and Exports. Act, 1947 read with Clause 5 of the Import Contro Order, 1955 and each of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are sentenced to pay a fine under each count - Accused No. 1 who is principal culprit and who was sentenced by trial Court to imprisonment and fine is sentenced to pay a fine under each count - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

DUA, J.: A complaint under S. 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 dated 24th February, 1964 was presented by the Chief Controller of imports and Exports, New Delhi in the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras against (1) K. T. Kosalram, Director-in-charge of Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd.. Madras. (2) K. T. Janakiram. Director, Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd; (3)K. Natarajan, Manager. Messrs Mohan Ram Press, Madras, (4) Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd., Madras, (5) Sri T. N. Ramachandran son of S. Natesa Iyer, Madras and (6) T. Natarajan, Manager, Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd., Madras. According to the broad allegations in the complaint on November 28, 1959 accused no. 4 (hereafter called the Company) was registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as a public limited company with the Registrar of Companies, Madras. Accused nos. 1 and 2 who are brothers were both directors of the Company, accused no. 1 being the Director-in-charge attending to its day to day management and administration. He was also authorised to operate its accounts with the banks. The primary object of the Company was publication of a Tamil daily newspaper "Dina Seithi". Accused no. 3 was the Manager at Messers Mohan Ram Press located in the same building in which the Company was located. Srimati Gomati Devi, wife of accused no. 1 was the sole proprietress of this Press. She had given power of attorney to her husband for operating the bank account of her Press. The daily newspaper (Dina Seithi) used to be printed at this press. Accused no. 5 was a broker engaged in the business of negotiating sale and purchase of printing machinery. Between 1949 and 1951 he was working as Chief Salesman of Printers House. Madras and before that for about two years he had worked as a salesman with Messrs Standard Printing Machinery Company. Madras. In 1951 he started his independent business as a broker; in addition he also used to work as a correspondent of "Kerala Kaumudi" belonging to the Company. Accused no. 6 was the Manager of the Company and his wife Smt. Sarojini was one of its Directors. On May 5, 1960 accused no. 1 applied on behalf of the Company to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi for the grant of an import licence in favour of the Company for importing two secondhand rotary printing presses valued at Rs. 3 lakhs in the category of "Actual Users". The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on the recommendation of the Committee constituted for the purpose, issued in the first instance an import licence for Rs- 1,50,000 (Ex. P.12). The number of this licence was A-759626/ 60/AU/CCI/HQ and it was dated September 19, 1960. Later, on the request of accused no. 2 on behalf of the Company, the value of this licence was raised to Rs. 3 lakhs on the recommendation of the Press Registrar at India. The licence was returned to the Company on December,16, 1960. The original period of validity of the licence having expired on June 19, 1961 accussed no. 2 requested the Licensing Authority on behalf of the Company to extend the period on the ground that the machinery could not be fixed up by "the Company s Directors. Under the orders of the Controller in charge of the newsprint sale, the, validity of the licence was extended upto March 19, 1962. On July 2, 1961 accused no. 1 sought permission of the Licensing Authority on behalf of the Company to import two secondhand rotary presses instead of one already permitted within the licence value of Rs. 3 lakhs under the import licence Ex.P/12 on the ground that one more printing press was required for the proposed office at Madurai (Ex. P/15). After securing further necessary information about the machinery proposed to be imported the Chief Controller approved the request with the result that the amended licence for two presses was sent to the Company on August 16, 1961. On December 19, 1961 the Company, as per letter sent by accused no. 1, informed the Chief Controller that one rotary printing press had been
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top