{"id":120708,"date":"1963-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963"},"modified":"2018-03-20T04:07:52","modified_gmt":"2018-03-19T22:37:52","slug":"abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1470, \t\t 1964 SCR (1) 830<\/div>\n
Author: R Dayal<\/div>\n
Bench: Dayal, Raghubar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nABDUL AZIZ AMINUDIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n07\/02\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nBENCH:\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nSUBBARAO, K.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1470\t\t  1964 SCR  (1) 830\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1966 SC1586\t (12)\n E\t    1973 SC 106\t (37,146)\n\n\nACT:\nImport and Export--Powers to prohibit or restrict import and\nExport--Scope of--Licence to import goods issued subject  to\ncondition  not to sell goods imported--Contravention of\t the\ncondition--Licensee,  if  liable to  punishment--Import\t and\nExport (Control) Act, 1947 (XVIII of 1947), ss. 3, 5-Imports\n(Control) Order, 1955, Cl. 5, sub-cls. (2), (4).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\tas  the\t Chairman  of  the  Powerloom\tSadi\nManufacturer's\t Go-operative  Association,   obtained\t the\nlicence for the import of certain quantity of art silk\tyarn\nby  the Association' The licence was issued subject  to\t the\ncondition  that\t the  goods  would  be\tutilised  only\t for\nconsumption  as raw material or accessories in the  licence-\nholders'  factory and that no portion thereof would be\tsold\nto  any party.\tThe Associa. tion could not arrange for\t the\nnecessary  finances  and therefore had\tthe  goods  imported\nthrough Warden & Co., who financed the transaction.  Part of\nthe  goods  received  was utilised In  accordance  with\t the\ncondition  of  the  licence, the rest was  however  sold  by\nWarden & Co., and the amount was paid to the Association  by\nway of profits.\t The appellant and the other members of\t the\nAssociation were prosecuted for committing the office  under\ns.  5  of the Imports and Exports  (Control)  Act,1947,\t for\nhaving\tcontravened the Imports (Control) Order,  1935,\t but\nall  of them were acquitted by the trial court.\t  The  State\nappealed against the acquittal of the appellant alone  which\nwas  allowed  by  the  High  Court  and\t the  appellant\t was\nconvicted and sentenced to three months' rigorous  imprison-\nment alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000\/-.\nHeld,  that the power conferred under s. 3(1) of the Act  is\nnot restricted merely to prohibiting or restricting  imports\nat  the point of entry but extends also to  controlling\t the\nsubsequent  disposal of the goods imported.  It is  for\t the\nappropri.  ate authority and not for the courts to  consider\n-the policy, which must depend on diverse consideration,  to\nbe adopted in regard to the control of import of goods.\t The\nprovision  in  cl. 5 of the order empowering  the  licensing\nauthority to attach\n  831\na  condition  to the effect that the goods  covered  by\t the\nlicence\t shall\tnot  be disposed of  except  in\t the  manner\nprescribed  by the licensing authority is a valid  provision\nwhich  comes within the powers conferred by s. 3 of the\t Act\non the Central Government.\nState  of  Bambay v. F. N. Balsara,<\/a> [1931]  S.C.R.  682\t and\nGlass  Chatons Importers and Users' Association v. Union  of\nIndia,<\/a> [1962] 1 S.C,R. 862, held inapplicable.\nDaya v. Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Export,<\/a> [1963]\n2 S.C.R. 73, referred to.\nHeld,  that in the present case the licence has been  issued\nunder the Order of 1955.  The language of sub-cl. (2) of cl.\n5  of  that Order is wide and permits the imposition  of  'a\ncondition  which was outside sub-cl. (5) of cl. (a)  of\t the\nOrder  of  1948.  Sub.cl. (4) of cl. 5 makes  it  obligatory\nupon the licensee to comply with all the conditions  imposed\nor deemed to be imposed under cl. 5. The licensing authority\nis competent - under the Order to impose the condition\tthat\nthe  imported  goods be not sold to any person and  thus  to\neffect\t the   ordinary\t rights\t of   the   importer.\t The\ncontravention of any condition of a licence thus amounts  to\nthe contravention of the provisions of sub-cl. 4 of cl. 5 of\nthe Order and consequently to the contravention of the order\nmade  under the Act and therefore the licensee makes  itself\nliable to punishment under s. 5 of the Act.\nEast  India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs [19631  3\nS.C.R.\t338 and C. T. A. Pillai v. H. P. Lohia, A.I.R.\t1957\nCal, 83, held inapplicable.\nHeld,  that for contravening the condition of  the  licence,\nactual\tpossession of the imported goods is  not  necessary.\nFurther, the possession of Warden & Co , would be possession\nof  the Association, as the former was its agent  to  import\nthe goods.\nHeld,  further\tthat the appellant aided  intentionally\t the\nAssociation in disposing of the goods through Warden &\tCo.,\nand therefore abetted the contravention of the condition  of\nthe  licence.\tThe case appears to be\tdeliberate  case  of\nsecuring  import licence with a view to mis-apply the  goods\nimported  and  therefore,  the\tsentence  of  three  months'\nrigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000\/- is not severe.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 168 of
\n1961.\n<\/p>\n
832<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nAugust 3, 1951, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal  Appeal
\nNo. 99 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
Shaukat Husain and P. C. Agarwala, for the Appellant.
\nC.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, D.  R.\tPrem
\nand R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1963.\tFebruary 7. The judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nRAGHUBAR DAYAL,J.-This appeal, by special leave, is  against
\nthe  order  of the High Court of Bombay allowing  the  State
\nappeal and convicting the appellant of the offence under  s.
\n5   of\tthe  Imports  and  Exports  (Control)\tAct,   1947,
\nhereinafter  called  the  Act, for  having  contravened\t the
\nImports (Control) Order, 1955, hereinafter called the Order,
\nand  sentencing him to three months’  rigorous\timprisonment
\nand a fine of Rs. 2,000\/- .\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\twas the Chairman of the\t Malegaon  Powerloom
\nSadi\tManufacturer’s\t Cooperative\tAssociation    Ltd.,
\nhereinafter  called the Association.  There were  six  other
\nmembers of the Association.  All the members were  powerloom
\nweavers.   The\tappellant, as Chairman of  the\tAssociation,
\napplied for and obtained the licence dated January 2,  1956,
\nfor  the import of certain quantity of art silk yarn by\t the
\nAssociation.\tThe  licence  was  issued  subject  to\t the
\ncondition  that\t the  good,;  would  be\t utilised  only\t for
\nconsumption  as raw material or accessories in the  licence-
\nholders’  factory and that no portion thereof would be\tsold
\nto  any\t party.\t The Association could not arrange  for\t the
\nnecessary  finances  and therefore had\tthe  goods  imported
\nthrough Warden & Co., who financed the transaction.  Part of
\nthe goods received was utilised
\n 833<\/span>
\nin  accordance with the condition of the licence,  the\trest
\nwas  however sold by the said Warden & Co., as a  result  of
\nthe  correspondence  ending by a letter dated  November\t 13,
\n1956,  from the appellant as Chairman of the Association  to
\nWarden & Co. The relevant portion of this letter is
\n\t      “In this connection we have to inform you that
\n\t      as  the  price  of Art silk  yarn\t has  fallen
\n\t      greatly it is not possible for our Association
\n\t      to  take\tdelivery of the balance\t goods.\t  As
\n\t      such,  you are therefore requested to  dispose
\n\t      of  the balance goods lying with you  in\tsuch
\n\t      manner  that our Association suffers  no\tloss
\n\t      whatsoever, but gets a net profit of at  least
\n\t      4% on these goods.”\n<\/p>\n
After the disposal of the goods Warden & Co;, did pay to the
\nAssociation  a sum of Rs. 5,040\/- by way of profits  of\t the
\nAssociation.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant and the other members of the Association\twere
\nprosecuted for committing the offence under s. 5 of the Act.
\nThey were acquitted by the trial Court.\t The State  appealed
\nagainst\t the acquittal of the appellant alone.\t The  appeal
\nwas  allowed,  with  the  result  that\tthe  appellant\t was
\nconvicted of the offence under s. 5 of the Act.\t He has come
\nup in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The  various contentions raised for the appellant are :\t (i)
\nThe  Act  was  intended for the purpose\t of  prohibiting  or
\ncontrolling  imports  and exports which, according to  s.  2
\nthereof,  meant respectively bringing goods into and  taking
\nout  of\t India\tby  sea, land  or  air,\t and  therefore\t any
\nprovision in the Order providing for the issue of a  licence
\nto  import  goods subject to the condition  that  the  goods
\ncovered\t by  the licence be not disposed of  except  in\t the
\nmanner\tprescribed by the licensing authority could  not  be
\nvalidly made in the exercise of the powers conferred
\n834<\/span>
\non  the Central Government under s. 3 of the Act, as such  a
\ncondition deals with the conduct of the licensee  subsequent
\nto the import’ of the goods. (ii) the Order does not provide
\nfor the imposition of the condition in the licence that\t the
\nlicensee  is  not  to sell the\timported  goods.  (iii)\t The
\ncontravention  of  any\tcondition of the  licence  does\t not
\namount to a contravention of the provisions of the Act or an
\nOrder made thereunder and therefore is not punishable  under
\ns.  5 of the Act. (iv) The Association was the licensee\t and
\ntherefore any contravention of the condition of the  licence
\nwould  be  committed  by  the Association  and\tnot  by\t its
\nChairman and consequently it would be the Association  which
\nshould have been tried for the alleged offence under s. 5 of
\nthe  Act  and not the Chairman. (v) The\t possession  of\t the
\ngoods  had not passed to the Association and  therefore\t the
\nAssociation  could  not be guilty of the offence.  (vi)\t The
\nappellant  has\tno  mens  rea  to  commit  the\toffence\t and
\ntherefore could not be guilty of the offence. (vii)  Lastly,
\nthe sentence is severe.\n<\/p>\n
The  relevant provisions of the Act and the Order  to  which
\nreference  is necessary may now be quoted.  The preamble  of
\nthe Act reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “‘An  act\t to continue for  a  limited  period
\n\t      powers  to  prohibit or  control\timports\t and
\n\t      exports.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Whereas  it  is expedient to  continue  for  a
\n\t      limited  period, powers to prohibit,  restrict
\n\t      or otherwise control imports and exports.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 2 says that in the Act, ‘import’ and ‘export’  means
\nrespectively  bringing into and taking out of India by\tsea,
\nland or air.  Section 3 empowers the Central Government,  by
\norder published in the Official Gazette, to make  provisions
\nfor  prohibiting, restricting or otherwise  controlling,  in
\nall  cases or in specified classes of cases, and subject  to
\nsuch exceptions
\n 835<\/span>
\nif any, as may be made by or under the order, the import and
\nexport\tof goods of any specified description.\t Section  5,
\nthe penalty section, provided, at the relevant time, that if
\nany person contravened or attempted to contravene or abetted
\na  contravention  of any order made or deemed to  have\tbeen
\nmade under the Act, he would be punishable with imprisonment
\nfor  a\tterm which may extend to one year, or with  fine  or
\nwith both.  The section was amended in 1960 and as a  result
\nof  the amendment the contravening of any condition  of\t the
\nlicence\t granted under the order, was also made\t punishable.
\nThe  amended  provision, however, is not applicable  to\t the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
Clause 5 of the Order deals with the conditions of  licence.
\nIts relevant provisions read
\n“(1)  The licensing authority issuing a licence\t under\tthis
\norder may issue the same subject to one or   more   of\t the
\nconditions stated below :-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  that the goods covered by the licence shall not   be
\ndisposed  of,  except  in  the\t-manner\t prescribed  by\t the
\nlicensing  authority, or otherwise dealt with,\twithout\t the
\nwritten permission of the licensing authority or any  person
\nduly authorised by it;\n<\/p>\n
x\tx\t      x\t\tx\t  x\tx      x
\n(2)  A\tlicence\t granted under this order may  contain\tsuch
\nother  conditions,  not inconsistent with the  Act  or\tthis
\norder, as the -licensing authority may deem fit.\n<\/p>\n
x\t     x\t\t    x\t       x      x\t   x\t x
\n(4)  The  licensee shall comply with all conditions  imposed
\nor deemed to be imposed under this clause.”\n<\/p>\n
836<\/span><\/p>\n
In support of the contention that the power conferred on the
\nCentral\t Government for making provisions  for\tprohibiting,
\nrestricting or otherwise controlling import of goods can  be
\nexercised only with respect to the actual entry of the goods
\ninto  the  territory of India and not with  respect  to\t the
\ncontrol\t of  the imported goods subsequent  to\ttheir  being
\nbrought\t into the territory, reference was made to the\tcase
\nreported as The State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara<\/a> (1).\tThat
\ncase  dealt  with  a different matter.\tIt  related  to\t the
\npowers\t under\tthe  Bombay  Prohibition  Act,\t1949.\t The
\ncontention  was\t that the Provincial Legislature  could\t not
\nmake  a law regarding production,  manufacture,\t possession,
\ntransport,  purchase and sale of intoxicating liquor in\t the
\nexercise  of the powers under Entry 31 of List\tII,  Seventh
\nSchedule  to the Government of India Act, 1935, as the\tword
\n‘import’ used in Entry 19 of List 1 of the same Schedule did
\nnot end with mere landing of the goods on the shore or their
\narrival in the customs house but did imply that the imported
\ngoods must reach the hands of the importer, and he should be
\nable  to possess them.\tIt was argued that the impugned\t Act
\ndealt with import of goods and therefore encroached upon the
\nlegislative  powers of the Central Legislature.\t It  was  in
\nthis context and in view of the principles applicable to the
\nconstruing  of\tthe provisions laying down  the\t legislative
\nlimits of different legislatures that it was said at p. 70O.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Under  the  provisions of the  Government  of
\n\t      India Act, a limited meaning must be given  to
\n\t      the  word\t ‘import’ in entry 19 of List  1  in
\n\t      order to give effect to the very general words
\n\t      used in entry 31 of List II.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This observation cannot be applicable to the  interpretation
\nof the content of the words ‘import’ and ‘export’ in the Act
\nin the present case.\n<\/p>\n
In Glass Chatons Importers & Users’ Association v. Union  of
\nIndia<\/a> (2), it was contended that s. 3
\n(1) (1951) S.C.R. C82.\t  (2) [1962] 1 S.C.R. 862,
\n 837<\/span>
\nof  the Act, insofar as it permitted the Central  Government
\nto  make the order contemplated by sub cl. (h) of cl.  6  of
\nthe order which provides for the refusal to grant a  licence
\nif  the licensing authority decided to canalize imports\t and
\nthe  distribution  thereof through  special  or\t specialized
\nagencies  or  channels,\t was invalid.\tThe  contention\t was
\nrepelled, it being held that such a restriction on the right
\nto   carry  on\ttrade  and  to\tacquire\t property  was\t not
\nunreasonable.\tThe point urged before us was not argued  in
\nthat  case,  but the case dealt with the  provision  in\t the
\norder  relating\t to the distribution of the  imported  goods
\nthrough selected agencies, a stage subsequent to the  actual
\nimport of goods and the Court held that provision good.
\nIn  Daya v. Joint Chief Controller of Imports  and  Export-3<\/a>
\n(1), it was held that the provisions contained in cl. 6\t (h)
\nof the order, empowering the Chief Controller of Imports and
\nExports\t to refuse a licence if the licensing authority\t had
\ndecided to canalize imports and distribution thereof through
\na  special channel or agency, could be made in the  exercise
\nof the power conferred on the Central Government under s.  3
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
It  is clear therefore that the power conferred under  s.  3
\n(1)  of the Act is not restricted merely to  prohibiting  or
\nrestricting  imports at the point of entry but extends\talso
\nto   controlling  the  subsequent  disposal  of\t the   goods
\nimported.   It is for the appropriate authority and not\t for
\nthe  Courts  to consider the policy, which  must  depend  on
\ndiverse\t considerations,  to  be adopted in  regard  to\t the
\ncontrol of import of goods.  The import of goods can be con-
\ntrolled\t in several ways.  If it is desired that goods of  a
\nparticular  kind  should not enter the country at  all,\t the
\nimport\tof those goods can be totally prohibited.   In\tcase
\ntotal prohibition is not desired, the goods could be allowed
\nto come into -the country in limited
\n(1)  [1963] 2 S.C.R. 73.\n<\/p>\n
838<\/span><\/p>\n
quantities.   That would necessitate empowering\t persons  to
\nimport under licences certain fixed quantities of the goods.
\nThe  quantity  of  goods ‘to be imported  will\thave  to  be
\ndetermined  on\tconsideration of the  necessity\t for  having
\nthose  goods in the country and that again, would depend  on
\nthe  use  to be made of those goods.  It  follows  therefore
\nthat  the persons licensed to import goods up to  a  certain
\nquantity  should be amenable to the orders of the  licensing
\nauthority  with respect to the way in which those goods\t are
\nto  be\tutilised.  If the licensing authority  has  no\tsuch
\npower, its control over the import cannot be effective.\t  It
\nmay have considered it necessary to have goods imported\t for
\na   particular\t purpose.   If\tit  cannot   control   their
\nutilisation  for  that purpose, the  imported  goods,  after
\nimport, can be diverted to different uses, defeating thereby
\nthe very purpose for which the import was allowed and  power
\nhad  been  conferred on the Central  Government\t to  control
\nimports.  It is therefore not possible to restrict the scope
\nof the provision about the control of import to the stage of
\nimporting  of  the goods at the frontiers  of  the  country.
\nTheir  content is much wider and extends to every  stage  at
\nwhich  the  Government feels it necessary to  see  that\t the
\nimported  goods\t are properly utilised for the\tpurpose\t for
\nwhich their import was considered necessary in the interests
\nof the country.\n<\/p>\n
We  are therefore of opinion that the provision in cl. 5  of
\nthe  Order  empowering the licensing authority to  attach  a
\ncondition  to  the  effect that the  goods  covered  by\t the
\nlicence\t shall\tnot  be disposed of  except  in\t the  manner
\nprescribed  by the licensing authority is a valid  provision
\nwhich comes within’ the powers conferred by s. 3 of the\t Act
\non’ the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
In  support of the second contention that the.\t Order\tdoes
\nnot provide for imposing the condition
\n 839<\/span>
\nthat  the imported goods be not sold, reliance is placed  on
\nthe  decision in East India Commercial Co. v.  Collector  of
\nCustoms\t (1).  In that case, a condition was imposed in\t the
\nlicence\t prohibiting the importer from selling the  imported
\ngoods.\tSub-cl. (1) of cl. (a) of Notification No.  2\/ITC\/48
\ndated  March 6, 1948, provided for imposing a  condition  in
\nthe  licence  to  the effect that  the\timporter  shall\t not
\ndispose\t of  or otherwise deal. with the goods\twithout\t the
\nwritten permission of the licensing authority or any  person
\nduly authorised.  Sub-cl. (v) of cl. (a) of the Notification
\nprovided :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “that  such  other conditions may\t be  imposed
\n\t      which the licensing authority considers to  be
\n\t      expedient\t from  the administrative  point  of
\n\t      view  and which are not inconsistent with\t the
\n\t      provisions of the said Act;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  actual condition imposed, however, did not fall’  under
\nsub-cl.\t (1)  of cl. (a) and was sought to be  supported  by
\nrelying\t on  sub-cl. (v).  This Court held that\t under\tthat
\nclause\ta licensing authority was competent to\timpose\tonly
\nsuch  condition as may be expedient from the  administrative
\npoint’.\t of view.  This Court further held that\t prohibiting
\nan importer from disposing of the goods imported affects the
\nrights of that person and therefore such a condition  cannot
\nbe  prescribed\tin  the licence in the\tabsence\t of  a\trule
\npermitting  that  to be done.  In the case  before  us,\t the
\nlicence\t has  been  issued under the  Order  of\t 1955.\t The
\nlanguage  of sub-cl. (2) of cl. 5 of that Order is wide\t and
\npermits the imposition of a condition which was outside sub-
\ncl. (v) of cl. (a) of the order of 1948.  Sub-cl. (4) of cl.
\n5  further makes it obligatory upon the licensee  to  comply
\nwith  all  the conditions imposed or deemed  to\t be  imposed
\nunder  cl.  5.\tWe therefore do not agree  with\t the  second
\ncontention   and  hold\tthat  the  licensing  authority\t  is
\ncompetent under the Order to impose the condition that the
\n(1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 338,
\n840<\/span>
\nimported goods be not sold to any person and thus to  affect
\nthe ordinary rights of the importer.\n<\/p>\n
The third contention too has no force.\tSub-cl. (4) of cl. 5
\nprovides that the licensee shall comply with all  conditions
\nimposed\t or  deemed to be imposed under\t that  clause.\t The
\ncontravention of any condition of a licence thus amounts  to
\nthe Contravention of the provisions of sub-cl. (4) of’ cl. 5
\nof  the Order and consequently to the contravention  of\t the
\nOrder\tmade  under  the  Act.\t It  follows  that  if\t the
\nAssociation,   the  licensee,  does  not  comply  with\t the
\nconditions  of\tthe  licence about use of the  goods  to  be
\nimported,  it contravenes the Order made under the  Act\t and
\nmakes itself liable to punishment under s. 5 of the Act.
\nThe  cases reported as C. T. A. Pillai v. H. P.\t Lohia\t(1),
\nand  East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs\t(2),
\nholding that the infringement of a condition in the  licence
\nnot  to\t sell  goods imported to third\tparties\t is  not  an
\ninfringement of the Order, are not of help as they deal with
\nthe  contravention of the conditions of the licence  granted
\nunder orders dated July 1, 1943 and March 6, 194S which\t did
\nnot  contain a provision comparable with the  provisions  of
\nsub-cl(4) of cl. 5 of the Order of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
We accept the fourth contention that it is the\tAssociation,
\nthe licensee, which alone could contravene the condition  of
\nthe licence and thus contravene the Order, but do not  agree
\nwith the fifth contention that it could not be guilty of the
\noffence as it had not got actual possession of the  imported
\ngoods.\t For  contravening  the condition  of  the  licence,
\nactual\tpossession of the imported goods is  not  necessary.
\nFurther, the possession of Warden & Co., would be possession
\nof  the Association, as the former was its agent  to  import
\nthe goods.\n<\/p>\n
Re : the sixth point that the appellant had no intention  to
\ncommit the offence, the finding of the
\n(1) A.I.R. 1957 Cal. 83.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  (2) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 338,
\n 841<\/span>
\nHigh Court is against the appellant.  The High Court rightly
\nheld  him guilty of the offence under S. 5 of the Act  on  a
\nfinding\t that  he intentionally aided the  Association,\t the
\nlicensee,  in committing the offence under s. 5 of the\tAct,
\nand  thus  abetted the contravention of the offence  by\t the
\nAssociation.  The appellant, as Chairman, authorised  Warden
\n& Co., to dispose of the goods which the Association did not
\nwant to utilise on account of the decline in price.  He thus
\naided  intentionally  the Association in  disposing  of\t the
\ngoods  through\tWarden\t& Co.,\tand  therefore\tabetted\t the
\ncontravention of the condition of the licence to the  effect
\nthat  the goods imported would be utilised by  the  licensee
\nalone and would not be sold to any other party.
\nWe  do\tnot  consider that the sentence\t is  severe  in\t the
\ncircumstances of the case which indicate that from the\tvery
\nbeginning  the\tappellant, as Chairman of  the\tAssociation,
\nknew  that the Association would not be able to utilise\t all
\nthe yarn to be imported under the licence applied for.\t The
\nfact  that  Warden’ & Co., did pay over Rs. 5,000\/-  to\t the
\nAssociation  indicates\tthat  the goods did  fetch  a  price
\nhigher than the price paid for their importation.  The\tcase
\nappears\t to be a deliberate case of securing import  licence
\nwith a view to mis-apply the goods imported.
\nWe therefore dismiss the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
842<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1470, 1964 SCR (1) 830 Author: R Dayal Bench: Dayal, Raghubar PETITIONER: ABDUL AZIZ AMINUDIN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/02\/1963 BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR IMAM, SYED JAFFER SUBBARAO, K. MUDHOLKAR, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1963-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-19T22:37:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-19T22:37:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963\"},\"wordCount\":3020,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963\",\"name\":\"Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-19T22:37:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-19T22:37:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963","datePublished":"1963-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-19T22:37:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963"},"wordCount":3020,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963","name":"Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-19T22:37:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-aziz-aminudin-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-february-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120708","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120708"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120708\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}