Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 466 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963
On perusal of the above judgment it is clear that the fourth contention referred to above was to the effect that the Association was the licensee and therefore a contravention of the condition of the license would be committed only by the Association and not by its Chairman and consequently it would be the Association which should have been tried for the alleged offence under S. 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act 1947 and not the Chairman. There were seven members who were powerloom weavers who had formed the Association. On behalf of the Association the Chairman had applied for and obtained a license for the import of certain quantity of Art silk yarn. There were similar restrictions regarding the user of the goods in the said license. The goods could be used only in the factory of the license-holders and could not be sold to any other party. The goods were imported. The Chairman of the Association requested the firm which was engaged for importing the goods to sell all those goods and give minimum profits of at least 4% to the Association. The goods were disposed of. The Chairman and the Members of the Association were prosecuted. The High Court convicted the Chairman under S. 5 of the Act. The question which was considered by the Supreme Court was whether the Chairman was the licensee or the Association was the licensee and the Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations that it was the Association which was the licensee and not the Chairman. The Supreme Court further held Chairman also guilty of the offence punishable under S. 5 of the Act on the ground that the Chairman intentionally aided the Association in committing the offence under S. 5 of the Act. So, it is evident that even though a third person may not be licensee himself yet if he abets or facilitates the violation of the terms of the license, he is also guilty of abetment of the offence. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court was thus distinguished by the single Bench of the Calcutta High Court on these reasonings and had opined that even a person other than a licensee could be held guilty of an offence punishable under S. 5 of the Act. I entirely agree with the reasons given in this judgment and hold that the appellant in the present case had been rightly convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge in as much as he with the full knowledge regarding the terms of the license got imported goods under the said license and also sold the said goods in clear violation of the terms of the license.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Bank Of India And Anr. vs The National Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. And ... on 31 July, 1972
The very wording of the Section makes it clear that any person violating the terms of the Import license is guilty of the offence. It is not correct to say that only the licensee in whose favor the license had been issued would be guilty of an offence if the goods are sold or dealt with in violation of any term of the license. A similar question arose for consideration in Bank of India v. The National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., . Certain goods have been imported issued in the name of Nisco. The goods came into possession of a receiver appointed by the Court and receiver entered into an agreement for sale of the goods with M/s. Modi Steels. The contention was raised before the single Bench of the High Court that receiver could not enter into any such sale agreement which is in violation of S. 5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act 1947. A contention was raised before the said Bench that if goods are sold in violation of the terms of the license, it is only the licensee who could be held liable and not any one else. This contention was repelled and it was held that the person or the persons who would be involved in alienation, transfer or sale of such goods in violation of the terms of the license, would be guilty of contravention of these terms of the license.
1