J.R.MUDHOLKAR, J. - (1.) WHAT we have to consider in this appeal is whether the High Court at Calcutta was right in setting aside the acquittal of the appellants of an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (hereafter called the Act) for the contravention of an order made under Clause 3 of the Exports (Control) Order, 1954 (hereafter called the Order) by exporting 75 tons of linseed oil cake without holding a permit authorising the appellants to export the commodity. The appellants were charged before Mr. F. M. Sanyal, Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta for two offences in addition to the one we have mentioned. Those offences were under Sections 417/34 and 471/465 of the Indian Penal Code. They were, however, acquitted of both these offences by the Presidency Magistrate as also of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. In an appeal by the respondent, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, the High Court of Calcutta maintained the acquittal of the appellants in regard to the two offences under the Penal Code but convicted them of the offence under Section 5 of the Act read with Clause 3 of the Order. Mr. Purshottam who appears for them sought to challenge the conviction of the appellants for the last mentioned offence on the following three grounds : (1) That the conviction rests only on circumstantial evidence and that the evidence does not warrant the conviction of the appellants. (2) That the High Court was in error in allowing a new case to be made out at the appellate stage. (3) That the prosecution did not prove the publication of a certain notification amending Schedule I of the Order. By the first ground urged by him Mr. Purshottam is in fact attempting to challenge a finding of fact. This Court has held in numerous cases that in an appeal by special leave it will not ordinarily allow findings of fact of the High Court to be challenged unless the finding is vitiated by a grave error or is so unreasonable as to shock one's conscience. Mr. Purshottam was unable to satisfy us that this is a kind of case in which the correctness of a finding of fact could be permitted to be challenged before us. We, therefore, did not permit him to challenge any finding of fact arrived at by the High Court in this case.
(2.) INSOFAR as the third point is concerned, though on its face it raises a question of law Mr. Purshottam in the course of his argument conceded that this question did not really arise in this case. That leaves us only with the second of the three points formulated by learned counsel. In order to appreciate the point it is necessary to refer to certain facts. On July 1, 1955 the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Calcutta, announced by Trade Notice No. G/277/55 that a quota of 5, 000 tons of linseed oil cake - which is a commodity mentioned in Schedule I of the Order had been released for export from India and that crushers of linseed during certain periods and shippers who exported any oil cake of a controlled variety during a certain period would be granted licences to export on the principle of "first come, first served". Each exporter would, according to the notification, be eligible to a quota up to 75 tons. The applicants for the licence had also to furnish certain information to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.
(3.) MESSRS Palriwala Bros., which is a partnership firm, of which the two appellants are members, controlled and practically owned four firms, one of which is "Messrs Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd.". These four firms being in the categories of persons eligible to obtain licences under the notification M/s. Palriwala Bros., could, therefore, legally export 4 x 75 tons, i.e., 300 tons of linseed oil cake to foreign countries. They applied for licences in the names of these firms and it would appear that they eventually secured them. According to the prosecution, not being content with the quota they might obtain legally, they conspired to obtain licences to export an additional quantity in the name of other firms and in pursuance of the conspiracy of fact obtained export licences from the licensing authority in the names of the following four firms (1) M/s. Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad and Co., (2) M/s. East India Commercial Corporation, (3) M/s. Shree Narayan and Co., (4) The International Overseas Corporation Ltd., and some other companies. We are here concerned with the first mentioned company only. We are not concerned with the export by the appellants in the names of the other firms because the finding of the High Court against the appellants is restricted only to the export by the appellants in the name of the first mentioned firm. ;