STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DHARAMVIR BHAGWANDAS KUNDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises as a result of the suo motu action taken by this Court for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused after reading the newspaper report dated 25th November, 1976.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this proceeding are briefly these: The respondent-accused No. 1 Dharmavir Bhagwandas Kundra made an application dated 5th March, 1966 for an import licence for importing raw films. A licence Ex. C under export promotion scheme of the value of Rupees two lacs was issued to him on 31st March, 1966. Accused No. 1 thereafter made an application for issuing the letter of authority in favour of M/s. Kodak Ltd. for importing raw films covered by his licence. In pursuance of that application 4 letters of authority Ex. D were issued. Thereafter accused No. 1 opened a bank account in the Dena Bank. It was alleged that instead of using the material for his own purpose accused No. 1 thereafter appointed M/s. International Express Co. and M/s. S.M. Manikar and Sons as his clearing agents. After the goods were received they were disposed of to three different parties viz. (1) M/s. Kason, (2) M/s. Keshavram Surendranath and (3) D.D. Shah of M/s. Overseas Film Corporation. It may be mentioned that according to the prosecution the firm of M/s. Kodak Ltd. has imported photo roll films and unexposed cinema film including 8 mm. and 35 mm. of Kodoorome film and accused Nos. 1 and 2 were alleged to have sold that raw film to M/s. Kesharam Surendranath for Rs. 2,21,600/-. It may be mentioned that the import licence was intended for the production of a film called "Production No. 1" which was never produced. It is on these facts that the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, filed a complaint against the respondent and two others.

(3.) In support of its case before charge, the prosecution examined several witnesses. After the charge was framed under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, accused No. 1 pleaded guilty to the charge and filed an elaborate long drawn out written statement making out a case for leniency. In particular he stated that actually he was not a man concerned with the business of production of films and that he was actually in service and that he was tempted to apply for the licence in question as he was assured finances by some financiers and friends. To his utter disappointment he submitted that the financiers let him down and the funds were not available. He also submitted that he had not at all imported raw film of 35 mm. size and it is only films of 8 mm. and 16 mm. size which are used for a mature purposes were imported. He further stated that as a result of these transactions it was in a bid to minimise the loss that he disposed of the incentives and got a profit of hardly Rs. 40,000/- as, against that he said that in the 4 transactions the amount of Rs. 71,130/- being the total of the bonds executed by him was also forfeited. He also contended that there is no breach of the licence as such although he admitted that there is a breach of the term of the agreement as stipulated in the bond to fulfil the obligations.