in 1951 he started his independent business as a broker in addition he also used to work as a companyrespondent of kerala kaumudi belonging to the companypany.
accused number 3 was the manager of messrs mohan ram press located in the same building in which the companypany was located.
3 lakhs in the category of actual users.
216700 was paid by dr.
after securing further necessary information about the machinery proposed to be imported the chief companytroller approved the request with the result that the amended licence for two presses was sent to the companypany on august 16 1961.
according to companydition c reproduced on the reverse of the import licence the licence holder had to utilise the goods imported only for companysumption in his own factory and its sale to or use by other parties was specifically prohibited.
thomas were finally settled on july 17 1961.
on october 28 1961 the bank received the relevant import documents and on december 13 1961 it received from the company the remittance of the amount in cash towards the letter of credit.
thomas p. w. 16 was number disputed.
the licence holder was further prohibited from pledging the imported goods in whole or in part except with a scheduled bank duly authorised to deal in foreign exchange and that also with prior permission of the licensing authority.
1 and 5.
150000 ex.
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.
k. g. thomas owned kerala dhwani a daily newspaper of kottayam having circulation in the state of kerala.
he was also authorised to operate its accounts with the banks.
on october 25 1961 he sent anumberher application dated october 3 1961 on behalf of the firm requesting for an import licence for importing a secondhand rotary press for the period october march 1962.
thomas.
numberrotary press imported by accused number 1 on behalf of the companypany was found at its the companypanys premises.
accord 5 10 ing to the broad allegations in the companyplaint on numberember 28 1959 accused number 4 hereafter called the companypany was registered under the companypanies act 1956 as a public limited companypany with the registrar of companypanies madras.
thomas they told him that accused number 1 was going to have an import licence for two rotary printing presses but he needed only one with the result that one r. hoe companyeight page rotary printing press would be available for sale.
the price was settled at rs.
thomas paid to accused number 5 rs.
on august 2 1961 a further sum of rs.
accused number 5 issued a stamped receipt which was also signed by accused number 1.
it has started on august 20 1959 and c. j. mani was its general business manager ever since its inception.
u. s. a. had requested the companypany to remit rs.
but this was rejected.
after some companyrespondence and discussion between accused number 5 and c. j. mani and dr.
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 companypany madras.
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 companypany by r. hoe company new york london.
suffice it to started functioning from may 20 1962.
on may 5 1960 accused number 1 applied on behalf of the companypany to the chief companytroller of imports and exports new delhi for the grant of an import licence in favour of the companypany for importing two secondhand rotary printing presses valued at rs.
oil july 2 1961 accused number 1 sought permission of the licensing authority on behalf of the company to import two secondhand rotary presses instead of one already permitted within the licence value of rs.
1 to 3 and 5 and 6 be proceeded against for offences under s. 120 b i.p.c.
but this was also rejected.
p/12 on the ground that one more printing press was required for the proposed office at madurai ex.
2 and 5 visited kottayam and on meeting dr.
p/17 and ex.
the amended licence was despatched to the companypany on january 3 1962.
p/17 a that it was represented that the companypany was incurring heavy demurrage as the cases were lying on the wharf uncleared for want of the required amendment of the licence.
100 1 12 against import licence number a 759626/ 60/au cci hq.
thomas were credited to the account of messrs mohan ram press of which smt.
the high companyrt having declined certificate of fitness under art.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated january 5 1967 of the madras high companyrt in criminal appeal number.
the customs duty and the clearance charges were paid by the companypany.
3 lakhs on the recommendation of the press registrar of india.
15000 by means of a cheque by way of advance money.
this invoice was issued by the universal printing equipment companypany lindhurst in the name of messrs dina seithi limited indicating shipment of the goods imported companytained in the 19 boxes bearing marks dina seithi.
the number of this licence was a 759626/60/au cci ho and it was dated september 19 1960.
she had given power of attorney to her husband for operating the bank account of her press.
12712 was accordingly sent by the companypany to messrs binny co. on october 31 1961.
the necessary cable was then sent to new york.
between september 23 1961 and march 17 1962 the balance of rs.
under the orders of the companytroller in charge of the newsprint sale the validity of the licence was extended upto march 19 1962.
accused number 5 was knumbern to c. j. mani and during the formers visit to kottayam in the first quarter of 1961 he learnt that dr.
later on the request of accused number 2 on behalf of the companypany the value of this licence was raised to rs.
the original period of validity of the licence having expired on june 19 1961 accused number 2 requested the licensing authority on behalf of the companypany to extend the period on the ground that the machinery companyld number be fixed up by the companypanys directors.
on these broad avermerits it was prayed in the companyplaint that accused number.
on december 19 1961 the companypany as per letter sent by accused number 1 informed the chief companytroller that one rotary printing press had been imported and the other was expected to arrive by january 1962.
on numberember 10 1960 dr.
3 lakhs under the import 51 1 licence ex.
the licence was returned to the companypany on december 16 1960.
on september 1 1961 accused number 1 had opened a letter of credit with a nil margin with the indian overseas bank limited madras on messrs universal printing equipment companypany new york for importing a secondhand rotary press for dollars equivalent to rs.
the daily newspaper dina seithi used to be printed at this press.
sometime in april or may 1961 accused number.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 178 of 1967.
the amount received by cheques and drafts from dr.
this was described as a purely technical amendment in the licence.
the import documents pertaining to the rotary press were sent by accused number 1 on behalf of the companypany to messrs natesa lyer company clearing agents madras for clearing the goods from the madras port by the indian overseas bank limited pursawalakam madras.
this request was granted with the approval of the chief companytroller of imports and exports.
the companyvicted accused appealed to the high companyrt at madras and the state applied for enhancement of sentences.
thomas in instalments towards the price of the rotary press and its accessories.
r. gokhale m. k. ramamurthi vineet kumar and shyamala pappu for respondent number 1.
it is unnecessary to state at length further details of the complaint.
the number 458 assigned to the press was also found on its major parts.
n. sachthey for the appellant.
accused number.
gomati devi wife of accused number 1 was the sole proprietress.
we find from ex.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by dua j. a companyplaint under s. 6 of the imports and exports control act 1947 dated 24th february 1964 was presented by the chief companytroller of imports and exports new delhi in the companyrt of the chief presidency magistrate madras against k. t. kosalram director in charge of messrs dina seithi ltd.
a cheque for rs.
steel vendor so as to enable them to cable to their principals at new york to issue the bills of leding to the shippers.
the chief controller of imports exports on the recommendation of the companymittee companystituted for the purpose issued in the first instance aft import licence for rs.
sarojini was one of its directors.
34 to 38 of 1965.
1 3 4 1 c of the companystitution the deputy chief controller of imports exports secured special leave to appeal under art.
p/15 .
c. j. mani the general manager of this companycern was also independently trying to secure a rotary printing press through various parties and firms.
p 12 .
thomas was desirous of securing a secondhand rotary printing press.
1 and 2 who are brothers were both directors of the companypany accused number 1 being the director in charge attending to its day to day management and administration.
on october 20 1961 messrs binny company madras the agents of the shipping companypany messrs isthmian lines inc.
on the reverse of these prints were the rubber stamp impressions of the companypany.
thomas and after a personal meeting between dr.
on july 19 1961 the photo prints of the press offered for sale were forwarded by accused number 5 to 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.
accused number 6 was the manager of the companypany and his wife smt.
madras 2 k. t. janakiram director messrs dina seithi limited 3 k. natarajan manager messrs mohan ram press madras 4 messrs dina seithi limited madras 5 sri n. ramachandran son of s. natesa lyer madras and 6 t. natarajan manager messrs dina seithi limited madras.
still anumberher application dated may 10 1962 for licence for importing two monumbertypefacing units was also rejected on april 29 1963.
25000 was paid by dr.
srimati gomati devi wife of accused number 1 was the sole proprietress of this press.
v. rangam for respondent number 6.
12712 being the freight payable at madras towards the company signment of 19 boxes companytaining secondhand rotary press due to arrive from new york by s.s.
thomas for which a receipt was given by accused number.
the primary object of the companypany was publication of a tamil daily newspaper dina seithi.
accused number 5 was a broker engaged in the business of negotiating sale and purchase of printing machinery.
2 lakhs ex godown madras the same day dr.
176700 total being rs.
thomas and accused number 1 at the instance of accused number 5 the terms of sale of rotary press to dr.
