NABAKISHORE DASH AND Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Nabakishore Dash is Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 365 of 1976 and one Krushna Chandra Sahu, is Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 375 of 1976. Both were being tried for an offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 on the allegation that they bad violated the conditions embodied in the Import licence (Ext. 1) dated 17 -10 -1967. Finally they were convicted thereunder each sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, besides payment of a fine of Rs. 500/ - each, or in default to undergo R. I. for one month by the Courts below occasioning these revisions.

(2.) THE facts are all admitted and may be briefly stated thus: Both the Petitioners are partners of a firm running under the name and style of "Jay Durga Metal industries", Balakati. The firm applied for import of zinc sheets. It had a licence (Ext. 1) which is substantially an import licence for zinc and other articles, named therein. The licence that was granted to the firm is named as him port Trade Control -Industry - Brass or bell -metal utensils, etc." The licence number is "P/SS/1575285/C/XX/25/C/C/ 23.24/N.F,", which is not disputed. The firm received zinc slabs of 30 metric tones valuing Rs. 82,703.11 p. including customs duty. It converted the zinc slabs into zinc rods and sold those goods to M/s. C.D. Ghosh and Co., delivered at the factory site of that firm on four different dates at a price of Rs. 95.000/ - and odd, as indicated in col. 8 of Ext. 11. The prosecution alleges that the firm could not have sold the zinc slabs by converting them into zinc rods but should have made materials of brass and bell -metal products or utensils and then would have been entitled to sell them. Thus by converting zinc slabs into zinc rods and by selling them, the firm has violated the conditions of the control order, and consequently liable under Section 5(i) of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 which runs thus:

(3.) THE prosecution examined 17 witnesses and the defence none. P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 depose to the facts which are admitted. The relevant witnesses are P.Ws. 2, 11 and 17. P.W. 2 in his cross -examination has admitted that for the purpose of manufacturing bell -metal utensils tin is absolutely necessary. P.W. 2 also admits that the Petitioners had applied for import of tin which could not be done. So is also the statement of P.W. 11. To corroborate the same, the documentary evidence in the case are Exts. 11 and 13. Columns 5 and 7 of Ext. 11 are material.