Case Analysis: Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State of Maharashtra
Case Details
Case name: Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State of Maharashtra
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Raghubar Dayal, Syed Jaffer Imam, J.R. Mudholkar
Date of decision: 07/02/1963
Citation / citations: 1963 AIR 1470, 1964 SCR (1) 830
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 1961; Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1961 (Bombay High Court)
Neutral citation: 1964 SCR (1) 830
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal
Source court or forum: Bombay High Court
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Abdul Aziz Aminudin, served as Chairman of the Malegaon Powerloom Sadi Manufacturer’s Cooperative Association Ltd. (the Association). In his capacity as Chairman, he applied for and obtained a licence dated 2 January 1956 authorising the import of a specified quantity of art‑silk yarn. The licence was issued subject to a condition that the imported yarn be used solely as raw material or accessories in the Association’s own factory and that no portion be sold to any other party.
Because the Association lacked the necessary finances, it engaged Warden & Co. to finance the transaction and effect the import on its behalf. Part of the yarn was utilised in accordance with the licence condition; the balance remained unsold. On 13 November 1956, the Chairman wrote to Warden & Co. directing that, owing to a fall in market price, the Association could not take delivery of the remaining yarn and that the agent should dispose of the balance “in such manner that our Association suffers no loss whatsoever, but gets a net profit of at least 4 %.” Following the disposal, Warden & Co. paid the Association Rs 5,040 as profit.
The appellant and the other members of the Association were prosecuted under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 for contravening the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The trial court acquitted all of them. The State appealed against the acquittal of the appellant alone. The Bombay High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1961, allowed the appeal, convicted the appellant under section 5, and sentenced him to three months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the conviction, the sentence, and the legal conclusions of the High Court.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court had to decide:
Whether the condition in the licence prohibiting the sale of the imported yarn was a valid exercise of the power conferred on the Central Government by section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act.
Whether a breach of that condition amounted to a contravention of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, and thus attracted liability under section 5 of the Act.
Whether the Chairman could be held personally liable for abetting the contravention, despite the Association being the licencee.
Whether actual possession of the imported goods by the Association was a necessary element for establishing an offence under section 5.
Whether the sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000 was manifestly excessive.
The appellant contended that:
The Act regulated only the act of import at the border, so a post‑import non‑sale condition exceeded the statutory power.
The 1955 Order did not empower the licensing authority to impose a prohibition on sale.