STATE OF KERALA Vs. P C ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the State of Kerala against acquittal of two Directors of the National Tyre aud Rubber Co. (India), Ltd., Kottayam, in a charge under S.5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947-1960. (hereafter 'the Act'). The facts are thus: The 1st accused is the Managing Director and the 2nd accused one of the Directors put in charge of the Bombay office of the National Tyre and Rubber Co. (India), Ltd., Kottayam (hereafter 'the Company'), which was granted three licences (Exts. P4, P7 and P10) for import of rubber with the express condition,

(2.) THE question here is whether, assuming without deciding that the goods shipped by the Company to Bombay were part of the goods imported under the aforesaid licences, the accused are liable to punishment under S.5 of the Act. THE conditions of the licence are that the imported goods shall be utilized only in the Company's factory, and that they should not be sold to or pledged with or permitted to be utilized by another party. THE licence does not stipulate the factory at which the goods imported under it may be utilized. It conditions merely 'that the goods will be utilized only...in the licence-holders' 'factory'. A transport of the imparted goods from one place to another is not within the prohibition of the conditions of the licence. So much so. if the Company hired a factory at Bombay and transported the goods to Bombay for utilization therein it might not be a contravention of the conditions. THEre is no case here that any part of the imported goods has been sold to or pledged with another. So the only question is whether any portion of the imported goods had been permitted to be utilized by another party.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General urged that abetment of a contravention of a condition of the licence is by itself punishable under S.5 of the Act and that therefore the accused can be punished even though the licensee-Company escaped prosecution. I am afraid that what is made punishable under S.5 of the Act is an abetment of a contravention and not an abetment of an attempt to contravene the conditions of a licence. As mentioned already, the facts put forth by the prosecution do not make out an actual contravention of the conditions of the licence by the licensee-Company, but only an attempt at such contravention. It follows that the Directors of the Company can be said only to have abetted an attempt to contravene a condition of the import licences. As the same has not been made punishable under S.5, no liability can be fastened on the accused here. In the result, the order of acquittal passed by the District Magistrate in this case appears to me right. This appeal fails and is dismissed hereby. Dismissed.