# DY. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF JMPORTS & EXPORTS, NEW DELHI v. K. T. KOSALRAM & ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] 2 S.C.R. 507
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-09-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 178of1967
- **Bench:** V. Bhargava, I. D. DuA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dy-chief-controller-of-jmports-exports-new-delhi-v-k-t-kosalram-ors-5160
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

September 29, 1970
Imports and Exports Act (18 of 1947), Import Control Order, 1955
and Import Trade Control Policy-Condition in licence for import of
goods-Interpretation
of-Import of Printing
Presses-Condition
in
licence against sale of printing material-If applicable to printing presses.
Under s. 3 of the IU1ports and Exports Act, 1947, the Central Government is empowered to provide by Order published in the Official
Gazette for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the import,
export, carriage or shipment etc., of goods of any specified description.
The Central Government made .the Import Control Order, 1955.
Under
cl. 3 of this Order. the import of .any goods of the description specified
in Sch. I of the Order is restricted except under and in accordance with
a licence or a customs clearance permit granted by the Central Govemment.
Item 67(1) in Sch. I Part V, contains printing and lithographic
material and a large number of various components of a printing. press •
. In Part V of the Schedule, known as ITC Schedule of the Import
Trade Control Handbook, relevant for the year 1960, published by the
Government of India (Ministry of Commerce and Industry) printing and
lithographic material are entered at serial no. 67 (I). The ITC Handbook, which is published .to give information of rules and procedure for
the assistance of those interested in imports, emphasises the importance
of correct classification with reference to .the serial number and partl of
the ITC Schedule.
The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry also
publishes from time to time its Import Trade Control Policy.
In the
publication, relevant for the
period April-September
1960, the policy
statement shows the list of items licensable to actual users, and item
67(1 )(i) dealing with printing
machinery (for Newspaper
Establishments and quality printers), is shown· in App. iv, Part V.
·
The respondents-who were the Director-in-Charge and other officers
of a company publishing a Tamil daily newspaper-and others applied
in Form B prescribed in Appendix Ill of the ITC Handbook, for a licence
for importing ·a printing press. . This form is meant for the import of
goods by actual users, when the licence is sought for import of goods
other than those falling under the capital goods licensing procedure. The
respol!dents stated that the raw material was required by them for printing their newspaper. The ITC number and part were specifically stated
to be No. 67(l)(i), Part V.
An amendment of the licence·was sought
by the respondents for import<ng one more
printing press. arid
while
the matter was pending with the Government, negotiations were entered
into by the respondents with a third party for the sale of one of the
printing presses.
One of the presses w~s. ultimately sold ~nd deli.vered
to the third party.
According to
cond1t1on (c) of the licence iswcd
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 2 S.C.R.
to the respondents the licence-holder had to utilise the goods imported
only· for consuf!Iption as raw materia! or accesso:ies in his '?~n factory
and their sole to or use by other partios was specifically prohibited.
Alleging that the respondents 'tad violated cl. (c) of the licence, the
appellant, (Deputy Chief Controller of Import3 and Exports) who was
authorised by Statute to do so. field a complaint against them for offences
under s. l ZOB I.P.C., s. 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act and
cl. 5(iv) of the Imports Control Order, 1955.
The rC'pondcnts just:fied the sale on the contention that cl, (c) did
not cover the printing pre'8es, that this clause postulated that the goods
covered by it should be capable of being utilized for consumption as raw
material or acce>Sory in a factory, and that a complete printing press
is neither raw material nor accessories and that it cannot be · said that
by ~ing a printing press for running it the press is utilised for consumption as raw material or accessory;
The trial court convicted some of the accused

## Text

_Characters 0–39,985 of 42,085. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39985 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
507
DY. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF JMPORTS & EXPORTS,
NEW DELHI
v.
K. T. KOSALRAM & ORS.
[V. BHARGAVA AND I. D. DuA, JJ.]
September 29, 1970
Imports and Exports Act (18 of 1947), Import Control Order, 1955
and Import Trade Control Policy-Condition in licence for import of
goods-Interpretation
of-Import of Printing
Presses-Condition
in
licence against sale of printing material-If applicable to printing presses.
Under s. 3 of the IU1ports and Exports Act, 1947, the Central Government is empowered to provide by Order published in the Official
Gazette for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the import,
export, carriage or shipment etc., of goods of any specified description.
The Central Government made .the Import Control Order, 1955.
Under
cl. 3 of this Order. the import of .any goods of the description specified
in Sch. I of the Order is restricted except under and in accordance with
a licence or a customs clearance permit granted by the Central Govemment.
Item 67(1) in Sch. I Part V, contains printing and lithographic
material and a large number of various components of a printing. press •
. In Part V of the Schedule, known as ITC Schedule of the Import
Trade Control Handbook, relevant for the year 1960, published by the
Government of India (Ministry of Commerce and Industry) printing and
lithographic material are entered at serial no. 67 (I). The ITC Handbook, which is published .to give information of rules and procedure for
the assistance of those interested in imports, emphasises the importance
of correct classification with reference to .the serial number and partl of
the ITC Schedule.
The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry also
publishes from time to time its Import Trade Control Policy.
In the
publication, relevant for the
period April-September
1960, the policy
statement shows the list of items licensable to actual users, and item
67(1 )(i) dealing with printing
machinery (for Newspaper
Establishments and quality printers), is shown· in App. iv, Part V.
·
The respondents-who were the Director-in-Charge and other officers
of a company publishing a Tamil daily newspaper-and others applied
in Form B prescribed in Appendix Ill of the ITC Handbook, for a licence
for importing ·a printing press. . This form is meant for the import of
goods by actual users, when the licence is sought for import of goods
other than those falling under the capital goods licensing procedure. The
respol!dents stated that the raw material was required by them for printing their newspaper. The ITC number and part were specifically stated
to be No. 67(l)(i), Part V.
An amendment of the licence·was sought
by the respondents for import<ng one more
printing press. arid
while
the matter was pending with the Government, negotiations were entered
into by the respondents with a third party for the sale of one of the
printing presses.
One of the presses w~s. ultimately sold ~nd deli.vered
to the third party.
According to
cond1t1on (c) of the licence iswcd
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 2 S.C.R.
to the respondents the licence-holder had to utilise the goods imported
only· for consuf!Iption as raw materia! or accesso:ies in his '?~n factory
and their sole to or use by other partios was specifically prohibited.
Alleging that the respondents 'tad violated cl. (c) of the licence, the
appellant, (Deputy Chief Controller of Import3 and Exports) who was
authorised by Statute to do so. field a complaint against them for offences
under s. l ZOB I.P.C., s. 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act and
cl. 5(iv) of the Imports Control Order, 1955.
The rC'pondcnts just:fied the sale on the contention that cl, (c) did
not cover the printing pre'8es, that this clause postulated that the goods
covered by it should be capable of being utilized for consumption as raw
material or acce>Sory in a factory, and that a complete printing press
is neither raw material nor accessories and that it cannot be · said that
by ~ing a printing press for running it the press is utilised for consumption as raw material or accessory;
The trial court convicted some of the accused, The High Court acquitted them on appeal, and dismissed the petition for enhancewent of
sentence filed by ·the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor applied
under Art. 134(1) (c) of the Constitution for leave to appoal to this Court
but. that application was dismissed by the High Court. Special leave to
appeal und.r Art. 136 was applied for by the appellant and was granted.
On the questions: (1) Whether special leave to appeal could be granted
to the appellant when be di.ct not moye the High Court; and (2) whether
the respondents were guilty of the offences ch~rged,
A
B
c
D
HELD : (I) There is no prnvision of law
which uisentitles
the
•
flppellant, who was the original complaint, from applying for special
leave in this Court. merely. because the· Public Prosecutor had ·applied
E
in the High Court for enhanced punishment and for leave to appeal to this
Court, under Art. 134(l)(c). Artie.le 136 and .the Supreme Court Rules are
also wide eno·ugh to._ empower this. Court tO ·grant special ]eave to ·the
appellant in cases like the present [515 A-CJ
Manage1nent of· Hindustan Co1n1nercial .Bank Ltd. Kanpur v. Bhagtt'an-
.dass, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 265, referred to;·
(2) {a) ·The words used in the licence have to be construed in the
F
background of the scheme of the Import Control Order, 1955, entry
•
No. 67 of Schedule. I .to that Order ·and the Import Trade Control Policy:
What particular meaning should be aitached to words :and phrases in a
I
given instrument is ·usually. to be gath~red ·from the context. the nature
··of the subject matter, th~ purpose or. the intention of the author, and the
effect of .giving to .thoni one or the other of the permissible meanings, on
G
·the object to be achieved. [515 F-Hl-
.
There is no item in any of the lists referred to in the Import Control
Order, 1955, or. the. relevant ITC Handbook or the relevant publication
rcgardin~ Import Trade Control Policy which covers printing presses as
a separate item. Printing presses ale thus treated by legislative intendment as' prinling material or printing machinery, and the respondents
also proceeded on that footing. This is shown by their use of Form
H
B, and by the reference in their application to serial No. 67(1)(i). They
also knew the disability imposed on them by cl. ( c) of the conditions
in the licence· issued to them .. The words 'utilised', 'consumption' and
A
B
c
D
E
DY. CHIEF COi'T. IMP. & EXI'. v. K. T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J.) 509
raw material', in tlw conditions have to be filled into the clearly discernible
statutory scheme and this is possible withotJt joing violence to the dic·
tionary meaning of the words. The word "consumption"' conveys the
idea of using up the goods by fixing \hem in the factory along with the
other components, and the various articles mentioned in Item 67(1) (i)
have been intended constitute 'taw material.' [518 A-B; 519 E-F]
(b) Further,
the respondents sought as.
actual· ttms the
original
licence and the amended licence on the ground that the imported goods
were required to meet the increasing demand of circulation of :heir newspaper.
Had they not complied with the procedure meant for the import
of goods by actual users they might not have secured the licence.· Having
secured a licence expressly for the import of goods for their use· they
cannot be permitted to ignore the condition of actual user on the plea
that cl. (c) of the conditions is inapplicable to them. [519 F·HI
Therefore, all the respondents-the individual accused and the com·
pany-were guilty of the offences charged. ,[520 F]
State of West Bengal v. Motilal Kanoria, [1966] 3
S.C.R.
933,
followed.
( 3) Breach of conditions for import of goods is a serious matter
because it prejudicially
affects the -country's
national
economy. The
view of the High Court is not sustainable on the statutory language and
on the Import Control Policy of which the respondents were fully aware,
anJ hence, this Court is justified in con.verting the acquit.ta! into convic·
lion. under Art. 136 of the Constitution. [520 G-H]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
178of1967.
·
Appeal by special leave from the judgment 3Jnd order dated
January 5, 1967 of the ·Madras High ·court in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 34 to 38 of 1965.
R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
F
H. R. Gokhale,
M. K. Ramamurthi,
Vineet Kumar
and
H
Shyama/a Pappu, for respondent No: L
A. V. Rangam, for resp;:mdent No. 6.
The Judgmenr of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J.
A complaint under s. 6 of the Imports and Exports ·
Control Act, 1947 dated 24th
Fe)Jruary, 196.4 was
presented
by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, .New. Delhi in
the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras against
( I ) K. T. Kosalram, Direc<or-in-charge of Messrs <Dina Seithi
Ltd., Madras, (2) K. T. Janakiram, Director, Messrs.Dina Seithi
Ltd., (3) K. Natarajan, Manager,
Messrs Mohan Ram Press,
Madras, ( 4) Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd., · Madras, ( 5) Sri T. N.
Ramachandran
son of
S. Natesa Iyer, Madras and
(6) T ..
Nalarajan, Manager, Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd., Madras. Accord·
510
SUPRE~E COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.R.
ing to the broad allegations in the complaint, on November 28,
1959 accused no. 4 (hereafter called the Company) was regis•
tered under the Companies Act, 1956, as a public limited
cori1pany with the Registrar of Companies, Madras.
Accused
nos. 1 and 2 who are brothers were both directors of the Com·
pany, accused no. l being the Director-in-,charge attending to its
day to day management and administration. He was also authorised to operate its accounts with the banks. The primary objec't
of the Company was publication of a Tamil daily newspaper
"Dina Seithi". Accused no. 3 was the Manager of Messrs Mohan
Ram Press located in the same building in which the Company
was located.
Srimati Gomati Devi, wife of accused no. 1 was
the sole proprietress of this Press. She had given power of attorney to her husband for operating the bank account of her Press.
The daily newspaper (Dina Seithi) used to be printed at this press.
Accused no. 5 was a broker engaged in the business of negotiating
sale and purchase of printing machinery. Between 1949 and
1951 he was working as Chief Salesman of Printers' House,
Madras and before that for about two years he had worked as a
salesman with Messrs Standard Printing Machinery Company,
Madras. In 1951 he started his independent business as a broker;
in addition he also used to work as a correspondent .of "Kerala
Kaumudi" belonging to the Company.
Accused ll<JI. 6 was the
Manager of the Company and his wife .Smt. .Sarojini was one of
its Directors. On May .5, 1960 accused no. 1 applied on behalf
. ()f the Company to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports,
New Delhi, for the grant of an import licence in favour of the
Company for importing two secondhand rotary printing presses
valued at Rs.' 3 lakhs in the. category of "Actual Users". The
Chief Controller of Imports & EJ>ports, on the recommendation
A
B
c
.D
E
of the Committee constituted for the purpose, issued in the first
instance an import licence for Rs. 1,50,000 (Ex. P-12). The. F
number of this licence was A-759626/60/AU/CCI/HQ and it
was dated September 19, 1960. Later, on the request of accused
no. 2 on behJ!f or the Company, the value of this licence was
raised to Rs. 3 lakhs on the recommendation of the Press Registrar
of India. The licence was returned to the Company ~ December
16, 1960. The original period of validity of the lice)\ce having
expired on June 19, 1961 accused no. 2 requested the Licensing
Authority on behalf of the Company to extend the period on the
ground that the machinery could not be fixed up by the Company's
Directors.
Under the orders of the Controller in charge of the
newsprint sale, the validity of the licence was extended upto
March 19. 1962.
Oil July 2, 1961 accused no. 1 sought permission of the Liceinsing Authority on beha!.f of the Company to
import two secondhand. rotary presses
instead of one already
i;>ernlitted within the licence value of Rs. 3 lakhs under the import
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DY. CHIEF CONT. IMP. & EXP. v. K. T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, /.) 511
licence Ex. P/12 on the ground that one mo~e printing press was
required for the proposed office at Madurai (Ex. P/15). After
securing further necessary information about the machinery proposed to be imported the Chief Controller approved the request
with the result that the amended licence for two presses iwas sent
to the Company, on August 16, 1961. On December 19, 1961
the Company as per letter sent by accused no. 1, informed the
Chief Coniroller that one rotary printing press had been imported
and the other was expected to arrive by January, 1962. It was
requested that in the import licence the description of the goods
be changed from "Rotary Press" to "Rotary Press with Stereo
equipment and
Turtles".
We
find from
Ex. P/17 and Ex.
PI l 7 (a) that it was represented that the Company was incurring
heavy demurrage as the cases were lying on the wharf uncleared
for wa~t of the required amendment of the licence.
This
was
described as a purely techhnical amendment in the licence. This
request was granted with th~ approval of the Chief Controller of
Imports and Exports.
The amended licence was despatched to
the Company on January 3, 1962. According to condition (c)
reproduced on -the reverse of the import licence the licence-holder
had to utilise the goods imported only fo.r consumption in his own
factory and its sale to or use by other parties was specifically prohibited. The licence-holder was further prohibited from pledging
the imported goods in whole or in part excepi with a scheduled
bank duly authorised to deal in foreign exchange and that also
with prior permission of the Licensing Authority.
One ,Dr. K. G. Thomas owned "Kerala Dhwani", a daily
newspaper of Kottayam having circulation in the State of Kerala.
It has started on August 20, 1959 and C. J. Mani was its general
business manager ever since its inception.
On November 10,
1960 Dr. Thomas applied to the Chief Controller of Imports and
Exports on behalf of his firm for importing a rotary printing press
under a Customs Clearance Permit. But this was rejected. On
October 25. 1961 he sent another application dated October 3,
1961 on behalf of the firm requesting for an import licence for
importing a secondhand rotary press for the
period
OctoberMarch. 1962. But this was also rejected. Still another application dated May I 0, 1962 for licence for importing two mono typefacing units was also rejected on April 29, 1963. C. J. Mani, the
General Manager of this concern was also independently trying
to secure a rotary printing press through various parties and firms.
Ac;;mcd no. 5 was known to C. J. Mani and during the former's
visit to Kottayam in the first quarter of 1961 he learnt that Dr.
Thomas was ..desirous of securing a secondhand rolary printing
press.
Sometime in April or May, 1961 accused nos. 2 and 5
visited Kottayam and on meeting Dr. Thomas they told him that
acc•1sed no. I was going to have an import licence for two rotary
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 2 S.C.R.
printing presses but he needed only one, with the result that one
R. Hoe & Co . eight-page rotary printing. press would be available
for sale.
After some correspondence and
discussion between
accused no. 5 ar.d C. J. Mani and Dr. Thomas and after a personal meeting between Dr. Thomas and accused no. 1 (at the instance of accused no. 5) the terms of sale of rotary press to Dr.
Thomas were finally settled on July 17, 1961.
The price was
settled at Rs. 2 lakhs ex-godown,
Madras, The same day Dr.
Thomas paid to accused no. ) Rs. 15,000 by means of a cheque
by way of advance money.
Accused no. 5 issued a stamped
receipt which· was also signed hy accu,cd no. I.
0'.1 July 19,
1961 the photo prints of the press offered for sale were forwarded
by accused no. 5 to Dr. Thomas. On the reverse of these prints
were the rubber stamp impressions of the Company. On August
2, 1961 a further sum of Rs. 25,000 was paid by Dr. Thomas
for which a receipt was given by accused nos. I and 5. Between
September 23, 196 l and
March 17, 1962 the balance of Rs.
1,76,700 (total being Rs. 2,16,700) was paid by Dr. Thomas
in instalments towards the price of the rotary press and its accessories,
On September I, 1961 accused No. I had
opened a
letter of credit with a nil margin with the In~ian Overseas Bank
Ltd., Madras on Messrs Universal Printing Equipment Company,
New York for importing a secondhand rotary press for
dollars
equivalent to Rs. 1,00.112 against import licence no. A-759626/
60/ AU/CCI/HQ. On October 28, J 961. the Bank received the
relevanf import documents and on December 13, 1961 it received
from the Company the remittance of the amount in cash towards
the letter of credit.
On October 20, 1961 Messrs Binny & Co.,
Madras, the agents of the Shipping Company Messrs Isthmian
Lines Inc.,
U. S. A. had
requested the
Company to
remit
Rs. 12,7) 2 being th'e freight payable at Madras towards the consignment of 19 boxes containing secondhand ro'.ary press du: to
arrive from New York by s.s. "Steel Vendor·· so as to enable them
to cable to their principals at New York to issue the bills of Jadin~
to the shippers.
A cheque for Rs. 12,712 was accordingly sent
by the Company to Messrs Binny & Co .. on Oc:ober 31. 1961.
The necessary cable was then sent to New York.
The import
documents pertaining to the rotary press \\ere sent by accused
no. I on behalf of the Company to Messrs Natesa Iyer & Co.,
Clearing Agents. Madras for dearing the goods from the Madras
Port by the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., Pursawalakam. Madras.
This invoice was issued by the
Universal Printing.
Equipment
Company.
Lindhurst in the name of Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd.,
indicating shipment of the goods imported contained in the 1.9
boxes· bearing ma1'ks "Dina Seithi".
The customs duty and the
clearance charges were paid by the Company. lt is unnecessary
to state at length further details of the complaint.
Suffice it to
A
I!
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
-·
DY. CHIEF CONT. IMP. & EXP. v. K, ·r. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J.) 5 .t3
say that the press erected by the technicians of "Keraia Dhwan.i"
started functioning from May 20, 1962. In March, 1962 the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madras, visited the premises of
this newspaper and found the rotary printing Press tallying with
the description given in the ·invoice issued to the Company by R.
Hoe & Co., New York/London. The number 458 assigned t<>
the press was also found on its major parts. No rotary press imported by accused no. l on behalf of the Company was found at
its (the company's) premises. The amount received by cheques
and drafts from Dr. Thomas were credited to the account of
Messrs Mohan Ram Press •of which Smt. Gomati Devi, wife of
accused no. J , was the sole proprietress. On these broad averments it was prayed in the complaint that accused nos. l to 3
and 5 and 6 be proceeded against for offences under s. 120-B,
l.P.C. read withs. 5 of Imports and Exports (Cor.trol) Act, 1947
and also for an offence under s. 5 of the said Act. Tne Company
was alleged to be guilty under s. 5 of the said Act read with cl:
(5), sub-cl. (iv) of Imports (Control) Order, 1955.
The Chief Presidency Magistrate who tried the
complaint
acquitted accused no. 6 holding that he had nothing to do with
the impugned transaction but convicted the res!. The Company
was sentenced to fine only and so were accused nos. 2, 3 ~
5;
three individual accused persons were directed, in case of default
to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three
months on each
count. Leniency was shown to accused nos. 2, 3 and 5 because
they had acted under the directions given by accused no. 1 who
wa~ sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under
each count and also to pay fine and in default to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for three months.
The convicted accused appealed to the High Court at Madras
and the State applied for enhancement of sentences. The High
Court acquitted all the accused persons with the result that tne·
revision for enhancement necessarily failed.
The High Court having declined certificate of fitness under
Art. 134 (I)( c) of the Constitution the Deputy Chief ControllP.r
of Imports & Exports secured special leave to appeal under Art.
136 of the Constitution against the order of acquittal by the HighCourt.
In the High Court. though in the memorandum of appeal
several grounds w~re tak~n: durin~ arguments the appellant's
counsel confined his subm1ss1on mamly to the point that condition
( c) of the lic.ence issued to. accused no. 4 (Ex. P / 12) related only
to raw m~tenal or a7cessones and th~t as such the sale of printing
press which was neither raw material nor a.:cessories,
did not
contravene that clause. The factum of sale of the printing press.
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.R.
to Dr. Thomas (P. W. 16) was not disputed. The High Court
.accepting this contention held condition ( c) in Rx. PI 12 to be
inapplicable to printing presses and observed that the Licensing
Authority had not applied its mind when this condition was inserted in the licence for importing the printing press in question.
On this ground the conviction recorded by the trial court was set
aside. The appellant's learned counsel in this Court has questioned
the correctness of this view and has submitted that it is not sustainable on the statutory provisions and has resulted in grave
failure of justice.
Before dealing with this question we may ·dispose· of a preliminary objection to the competency of this appeal at the instance
of. the Deputy Chief Controller of Import~ and Exports, raised
by Shri H. R. Gokhale on behalf of the respondents. It has been
pointed out that the special leave petition in this Court purports
to be filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports
and not by the State. As the State had conducted the prosecution
the complai:dant, it is argued, cannot seek leave nor can he prosecute this appeal. Leave already granted ex parte is, according to
Shri Gokhale liable to be revoked. Reliance has been placed on
Management of Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., Kanpur v.
Bhagwandass(1).
There the appellant had
secured from this
Court ex parte special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution without first movin~ the High Court for the necessary
certificate and this Court, on objection by the· respondent, revoked
the special leave as being in contravention o.f 0. 13, r. 2 of the
Supreme Court Rules. The respondents' contention before us is
that the Public Prosecutor and not the Deputy Chief Controller
of Imports & Exports had applied to the High Court for lhe
necessary certificate aind, therefore, the Deputy Chief Controller
has no locus standi to apply for special leave.
Having been
granted on an incompetent petition the special leave deserves
to be revoked, argues Shri Gokhale.
We are unable to uphold
this objection. The complaint was filed in the court of the Chief
Presidency Magistrate by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports
and Exports under s. 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control
Act, 1947. It is not disputed that this officer was, as stated in
para 1 of the complaint, duly authorised to make the complaint
within the contemplation of s. 6.
In the appeals filed by the
accused against their conviction the State was impleaded, as represented by the Deputy Chief ControJ!er of Imports and Exports
(complainant), as the respondent. It is true that in a petition
for enhancement of sentence filed in the High Court the Public
Prosecutor was shown as the petitioner and similarly the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the. High Court was
(1) (1965] (2) S.C.R. 265.
A
B
c
B
E
F
G
Jtl
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
D~. CHIEF CONT. IMP. & EXP. v. K. T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J.)515
also filed in that Coun by the Public Prosecutor. But that, in
our view, does not in any way disentitle the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (the original complainant duly
authorised by the statute) to apply for special leave to appeal to
this Coun and to prosecute the appeal. Our attention has not
been drawn to any provision of law which can be said to deprive
the Deputy Chief Controller the lawfully authorised complainant
in this case to seek special leave and prosecute this appeal; In
any event Art.
136 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court
Rules are wide enough in their language to empower this Court to
grant special leave to the Deputy Chief Controller in cases like
the present and deal with the appeal on the merits. The preliminary objection must accordingly be repelled.
Coming to the merits we may for a while again tum to condition ( c) 6f the licence which has alrejldy been noticed earlier.
It may be recalled that this condition expressly provides that the
goods would be utili8ed only for consumption as raw material or
accessories in the licence-holder's factory and no portion thereof
would be sold to, or, be permitted to be utilised by, any other party.
The goods imported are also not to be pledged with any financier
other than banks authorised to deal in foreign exchange, provided
that particulars of the goods so pledged are reported in advance
to the licensing authority. Under s. 3 of the Imports and Exports
Act, 18 of 1947 the Central Government is empowered to provide by order published in the
official Gazette for prohibiting,
restricting or otherwise controlling the iniport, export, carriage or
shipment etc., of goods of any specified description and also the
bringing into any pon or place in India of goods of any specified
description intended to .be taken out of India without being removed from the ship· or conveyance in which they are being
carried.. The Central Government by Order dated December 7,
J 95.5 ma~ tlle Import Control Clroer u11der ss. 3 and 4A of the
said· Aet.
Chi use ( 3) of this Order provides for restriction on
import of certain goods in these words :
"Save as otherwise provided in this Order, no person
shall import any goods of the description specified in
Schedule I, except under, and in accordance with, a
licence or a customs clearance permit granted by the
Central Government or by any officer specified in
Schedule JI."
Clause 7 of thi.s Order empowers the Licensing Authority suo
motu or on application by the licensee to amend the licences
granted under this Order in such manner as may be necessary
to make them conform to the aforesaid Act or this Order or any
other law in force or to rectify any error or omission in the
licence : on the licensee's request, however, the licence may be
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.R.
amended in any mayner consonant with the Import and Export
Control Regulations.
Item no. 67 ( 1) i:i Schedule I, Part V,
which appears to us to be relevant for this case reads :
"Printing and Lithographic material, namely, presses, lithographic plates, composing sticks, chases, imposing tables, lithographic stones, stero-blocks, wood
blocks, half-tone blocks,
electro-type blocks, process
blocks, roller moulds, roller frames and stocks, roller
composition, lithographic nap rollers, standing . screw
and hot presses, perforating machines, gold blocking
presses, galley presses, proof presses, arming presses,
copper plate printing presses,
rolling presses,
ruling
machines, ruling pen making machines, lead cutters,
rule cutters, slug cutters, type casting machines, type
setting and casting ,machines, paper in rolls with side
perforations to be used after further perforation for typecasting, rule bending machines, rule mitreing machines,
bronzing machines, stereotyping apparatus, paper folding machines, paging machines, but excluding ink and
paper and sets of mats when imported as
advertising
material in connection with composed films."
This item which contains a very large number of various components of a printing press corresponds to item no. 72(2) of the
Indian Tariff Act, 1934 which consolidates the law relating to
customs duties. Item no. 67(2) in Schedule !'speaks of con:ponent parts as defined in import tariff item no. 72 ( 3), of machinery specified in cl. (I) excluding those covered by sl. no 68 of
this Schedule. Serial no. 68 refers to rubber blankets. for printing
presses etc. Item no. 67 (I) would suggest that printing presses
are included in the expression "printing and lithographic material."
Our attention has not been drawn to any other entry ·either in
Schedule I of the Imports Control Order or in the first Schedule
of the Indian Tariff Act which would cover the import of printing
presses and payment of customs duty on such import. These two
statutes forming parts of the Import Control Scheme may appropriately be considered as throwing some light on each other. The
principal argument advanced on behalf of the respondents is
that cl. (c) of the conditions of the licence does not cover the
printing presses in question because the plain language of
this
clause postulates that goods covered by it should be capable of
being utilised for consumption as raw_ material or accessory in
a factory.
A complete printing press, it is contended, is neither
raw material nor accessories and it cannot be said that by fixing
a printing press for running it, the press is utilised for consumption as raw matedal or accessory.
This
argument,
though
attractive on first impression seems to us on a deeper thought to
A
B
c
D
~'~
,,_,
iii
E
F
G
H
j
DY. CHIEF CONT. IMP. & EXP. v. K. T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J.)517
A
be unacceptable. A close scrutiny of the scheme and la~gu~ge
of the relevant provisions of the import and export leg1SlaUon
and of the Import Control Policy formulated by the Government
leaves no doubt that the argument is unfounded.
Clause ( c)
reads:
B
c
" ( c) The goods will be
utilised only for
consumption as raw materials or accessories in the licenceholders' factorv and that no portion thereof will be sold
to or be pemiitted to be utilised by any other party or
pledged with any financier other than
Banks authorised to deal in foreign exchange provided that particulars of goods so pledged are reported in advance to
the licensing authority."
The respondents have sought assistance for their argument principally from the dictionary meaning of the words "consumption",.
"raw material" and "utilised" used in this clause.
"ConsumpD
tion", it is argued, conveys the·~dea of destruction of the commodity consumed\and "raw material" according to this submission,
must be "utilised" in this sense. In our oph1ion dictionary meanings, however helpful in understanding the general sense of .the
words cannot c;ontrol where the scheme of the statute or the mstrument considered as a whole clearly conveys a somewhat different
shade of meaning. It is not always a safe way to
con~true a
E
statute or a contract by dividing it by a process of etymological
dissection and after separating words from their context to give
each word some· particular definition given by lexicographers and
then to reconstruct the instrument upon the basis of those definitions. What particular .meaning should be attached to words and
phrases in a given . instrument is usually to be gathered from the
F
c_ontext, the nature of the subject matter, the purpose or the intent10n of the author and the effect of giVing to them one or the other
permissible meaning on the object to be achieved. Words are after
all ,used merely as a vehicle to convey the idea of the. speaker or the ·
wnter and the words have naturally, therefore, to be so constru.~d
as ~o fit in with the idea which emerges on a consideration of the
G
entire context. Each word is but a symbol which may stand for
one or a number of objects. The context, in which a word conveying different shades of meanings is used, is of importance. in
detennining the precise sense which fits in with the context as
intended to be conveyed by the author.
Th~ words used in the
licence (Ex. P/12) have accordingly to be construed in the backH
ground of the scheme of the Import Control Order, 1955, the
entry no. 67 of Schedule I to this Order and the Import Trade
Control Policy. The word "consumption" as used in cl. ( c) in the
licence seems to us to convey the idea--of using up the goods by
6-L 436 Sup Cl/71
.
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.R.
fixing them in the factory along with other components. This is
clear from the fact that entry no.
67 (1) in Schedule I-of the
Import Control Order does. not contain any single item denoting
a complete printing press and from the fact thatthe various articles
mentioned in this item seem as if to have been intended to constitute "raw material". This construction fits in with the scheme
and policy of the
Import Trade Control as we will presently
show.
The dictionary meaning of the three words in cl. ( c) on
which the respondent relies also seems, in our opinion to harmonise with this view.
The Government of India (Ministry of Commerce and Industry) has been publishing from time to time Import Trade Control Handbook on rules and procedure providing for the assistance of those interested in imports uptodate information as to
the manner in which applications for import licences should be
made, the appropriate authority to be addressed in each case, the
procedure governing the grant of licences for different classes of
goods, the validity and use of import licences and 0ther similar
matters. In the Handbook of 1956, which is the relevant Handbook for this case which relates to the licence originally granted
in ·1960, Schedule I commonly known as the ITC Schedule serves
broadly to classify the articles that enter into the import trade.
Part V of the Schedule covers industrial requirements and it is
in this part that the printing and lithographic material including
and other items are entered at sl. no. 67 (1), already noticed by
us.
This Handbook emphasises the importance of correct classification with reference to the serial number and part of the ITC
Schedule.
In Appendix III of the Handbook application forms
are prescribed. Form B is the one which was used by the respondents. This form is meant for the import of goods by actual users
not borne on the registers maintained by the Industrial Advisers,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, when licence is sought for
import of goods (other than those falling under the capital goods
licensing procedure) vide : Government of India, Ministry of
Commerce and Industry Order No. 17 /55 dated 7th December,
1955. It is expressly stated in the respondents' application [Ex.
P/11 (b)J that the raw material was required by them for printing
newspaper (Dina Seithi, Tamil Daily) : full particulars :if the
raw materials required to be · imported were given as
printing
machinery and proforma was attached with the application. ITC
number and part was specifically stated to be 67 (1 )(i), Part V.
It was on the basis of this application that the licence Ex. PI 12
was granted subject inter alia to condition ( c).
The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Indus~ry
also publishes from time to time Import Trade Control Policy
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
I
l •
I
\
I
• •
A
DY. CHIEF CONT. IMP. & EXP. v. K. T. KOSAL RAM (Dua, J.) 519
for the various licensing periods. In the publication for the licensing period April-September, 1960 we fin4 the policy statement,
showing the list of items licensable to actual users.
At p. 360
in Appendix IV, Part V, items 67(1 )(i) and 67(2) occur. Item
67(1)(i) reads:
:e
"Printing machinery (for Newspaper Establishments
c
D
E
F
c
H
and quality printers)."
Item 67(2) reads :
"Component parts of printing machinery".
It is obvious that in the respondents' application serial no. 670)
(i) refers to this item in the Import Trade Control Policy, AprilSeptember, 1960, the period relevant for this case. There is no
other item in any one of thel lists which covers printing presses
as a separate item.
This clearly shows that the printing presses
are treated by legislative intendment as Printing material or Printing machinery.
Form 'B' used in the present case indicates that
the Press intended to be imported was not considered 10 fall under
the Capital Goods Licensing Procedure. It seems that it is for all
these reasons that in the licence it was provided that these good5
would be utilised only for consumption as raw material or accessories in the licence-holder's factory. The words "utilbed'', "consumption" and "raw material" have to be fitted into the clearly
discernable statutory scheme and this is P°'>sible without doing
violence to the dictionary meaning of these word,.
The appropriate dictionary meaning of words possessing variable shades of
meanings has not to be arbitrarily selected and mechanically
applied without considering the setting in which they are used and
the purpose sought to be achieved.
There is another very cogent factor in this case, namely, that
the respondents, when they sought licence for the import of printing press expressly represented that the imported goods were required to meet the increasing demand of circulation of their
newspaper.
This indeed was the sole ground for importing the
press. The amended licence was also secured by the respondents
sG as to enable them to import two printing presses on the ground
that one press was required for their Madurai offiee as well.
Licence for both the printing presses was obtained for actual use
by them for their newspapers.
Had they not complied with the
procedure meant for the import of goods by actual users, they
might not have secured the necessary licence. Having secured a
licence expressly for the import of goods for their use they may
not be permitted to ignore the condition of actual user 011 the plea
(which by no means seems to be virtuous) that cl. ( c) is inapplicablie to actual users.
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971]2 S.C.11..
The respondents on their own showing clearly knew t!;eir disability under the conditions imposed by cl. ( c) of the licence.
Knowing full well the condition prohibiting the transfer of thi:
press to other persons the respondents as the correspondence to
which our attention has been drawn shows were actually negotiating for the sale of one of the presses during the period when
the procedure in regard to its import was being ca,rried out. On
July 2, 1961 amendment of the licence was sought so as to import
one mo;e printing press and on July 17, 1961 its
resale was
actually finalised and a part of the price also received. These facts
do not need any comment on the intention and bona (ides of the
respondents.
It is unnecessary to go into the evidence on this
point because, as already noticed, it is not disputed that one of
the printing presses was actually sold to Dr. Thomas prior to its
arrival. in India. The amendment of the licence also appears to
have been sought with the object of reselling the
second press.
The only argument urged namely that condition ( c) was inapplicable to the present case having been repelled, the appeal, in our
view, must succeed and the order of the High Court reversed.
The· validity of condition ( c) in the licence has not been questioned and in our opinion rightly in view of the decision of this Court
in Mis. Ramchand Jagdish Chand v. Union of Tndia( 1).
T~ere
is neither any legal nor equitable justification for reselling the
priming press.
A
B
c
D
The suggestion faintly
thrown that the Company wa; the
E
holder of the licence and, therefoc~. the otha respondents ( accused pers•)ns) should not be held liable is also without merit.
On the facts found and on the authority of State of West Bengal
v. Motilal Kanoria( 2 ) .all the respoo1dents
(the individual
accused persons along with the Company) are guilty.
The argument that the High Court having acquitted the respondents on a view which is a possible view this Court should
not convert acquittal into conviction under Art.