PARAMESWARAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are directed against the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Palghat in calendar cases 164 and 165 of 1963 rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the accused about the maintainability of the prosecution. The accused in both these cases, Sri. Parameswaran, is a licensee under the Kerala State Cement Control Order, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). On 3-5-1963 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palghat visited the premises where cement had been stocked and found various irregularities which it is unnecessary to mention here and as that amounted to breach of the conditions of the licence granted to the licensee two cases were launched against him for offences punishable under S.24 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). When the case came up for hearing, the accused raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the prosecution on the ground that even if there were any breach of the conditions of the licence it would not amount to a breach of the Order which alone would amount to an offence under S.24 of the Act.

(2.) Clause 1 of S.18G of the Act empowers the Central Government by notified order to make provision for regulating the supply and distribution of any article or class of articles relating to any scheduled industry. S.25 of the Act empowers the Central Government to delegate its powers in this behalf to the State Government or any other authority. By virtue of this delegated authority the State Government has made the Kerala State Cement Control Order, 1961.

(3.) In support of this position learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. East India Commercial Co., Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta ( AIR 1962 SC 1893 ). In that case the appellant company had brought into India from U.S.A. large quantities of electric goods under a licence. The licence was subject to the condition that the goods would be utilised only for the companies use in the factory and that no portion thereof would be sold. Goods after reaching India were cleared out of custom on payment of customs duty, but later on information being received by the Chief Controller of Imports that the company was selling goods to various parties, the matter was investigated and the goods were seized under a search warrant. A criminal prosecution launched against the director of the company under S.5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and for cheating ended in the accused being discharged. Thereafter the Collector of customs started proceedings under S.167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with S.3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and called upon the appellant by notice to show cause why the sale proceeds remaining in court should not be confiscated. The appellant company thereupon filed an application in the High Court for the issue of an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of prohibition against the Collector of customs from continuing with the proceedings initiated by him. The application was dismissed by the High Court and the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court.