Raghubar Dayal, J. - (1.) This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the High Court of Bombay allowing the State appeal and convicting the appellant of the offence under S.5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act.1947, hereinafter called the Act, for having contravened the Imports (control) Order, 1955, hereinafter called the Order and sentencing him to three months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-
(2.) The appellant was the Chairman of the Malegaon Powerloom Sadi Manufacturer's Cooperative, Association Ltd. hereinafter called the Association. There were six other members of the Association. All the members were powerloom weavers. The appellant as Chairman of the Association, applied for and obtained the licence dated January 2, 1956, for the import of certain quantity of art silk yarn by the Association The Licence was issued subject to the condition that the goods would be utilised only for consumption as raw material or accessories in the licence-holders' factory and that no portion thereof would be sold to any party. The Association could not arrange for the necessary finances and therefore had the goods imported through Warden and Co., who financed the transaction. Part of the goods received was utilised in accordance with the condition of the licence, the rest was however sold by the said Warden and Co., as a result of the correspondence ending by a letter dated November 13, 1956, from the appellant as Chairman of the Association to Warden and Co. The relevant portion of this letter is: "In this connection we have to inform you that as the price of Art silk yarn has fallen greatly it is not possible for our Association to take delivery of the balance goods. As such you are therefore requested to dispose of the balance goods lying with you in such manner that our Association suffers no loss whatsoever, but gets a net profit of at least 4 per cent on these goods". After the disposal of the goods Warden and Co., did pay to the Association a sum of Rs 5,040/- by way of profits of the Association.
(3.) The appellant and the other members of the Association were prosecuted for committing the offence under S.5 of the Act. They were acquitted by the trial Court. The State appealed against the acquittal of the appellant alone. The appeal was allowed, with the result that the appellant was convicted of the offence under S. 5 of the Act. He has come up in appeal.;