JUDGMENT 1. The appellant H. K. Saha was connected by a Presidency Magistrate of calcutta under section 5 of the Imports exports (Control) Act, 1947 for entravention of Order No. 5 (3) (ii) the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, which order constitutes a condition of two licences whereunder the appellant was authorised to import betel nuts from abroad. The appellant obtained two licences on the basis of the quota certificate that was transferred to him by the licensee concerned. The allegation against the appellant was that in contravention of a term of the licences he transferred property in the goods concerned before clearance thereof through the Customs. The licences which are the subject-matter of the prosecution are Exhibits 4 and 6 and the corresponding bills of lading for the consignments concerned are Exhibits 8 and 10. The prosecution alleged that before the arrival of the goods at the Calcutta Port the complainant sold one of the bills of lading to M/s. Indo-Commercial Co., and the other to Messrs srikrishna Subhakaran. These transferees are stated ho have cleared the consignments through the clearing agents Messrs Bengal National Agency and the clearance was made without any letter of authority authorising the licensee to transfer the property in the goods. 2. The defence was that the appellant took loans of money from Messrs Indo-Commercial Company and Messrs Srikrishna Subhakaran before the arrival of the goods and that these firms were further instructed to sell the goods as per the appellant's instructions after clearance thereof through the Custoand storing the same in their godowns. The firms are stated to have paid the appellant the sale price of the goods after deducting their dues, commissions, interest, etc. The learned Magistrate found that the transactions entered into by the appellant with the two firms Messrs indo-Commercial Company and messrs Srikrishna Subhakaran were in fact sales of the goods concerned to them prior to the clearance thereof through the Customs and that the method adopted was only a camouflage intended to suppress the real nature of the transaction. On this finding he came to the conclusion that the appellant had violated the relevant condition of the licence which is incorporated in Order 5 (3) (ii) of the Imports (Control)Order, 1955 and on this finding he convicted the appellant to a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months. On this finding he came to the conclusion that the appellant had violated the relevant condition of the licence which is incorporated in Order 5 (3) (ii) of the Imports (Control)Order, 1955 and on this finding he convicted the appellant to a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months. It is this order of conviction and sentence which is the subject-matter of the present appeal. 3. It was urged on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Poddar that the clearance of the goods through Customs with the help of the two firms named above became necessary in view of the fact that the appellant was in want of funds for the purpose of releasing the bills of lading from the Indian overseas Bank to which the shippers had sent the same and also for the purpose of the sales tax permit which was necessary for the purpose of releasing the goods through the Customs and that the bonafides of the transaction would be apparent from the sale notes exhibits A and B, the carbon copies whereof were seized by the police in course of the investigation but were suppressed. It was further urged that there is no satisfactory evidence that the bills of lading Exhibits 8 and 10 were endorsed by the appellant in favour of Messrs Indo-Commercial Company and Messrs Srikrishna Subhakaran respectively and that as such the prosecution must be held to have failed to prove transfer of title to the goods concerned to those firms before the same were taken delivery of from the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta. 4. Learned advocates appearing for the respondents contended that although the endorsements on the bills of lading by the appellant could not be proved there is evidence on record to indicate transfer of the bills of lading for valuable consideration by the appellant to the two firms concerned and that so far as the two sale notes Exhibits A and B are concerned these are a mere cloak which were created with the clear object of suppressing the character of the transaction. The facts of the case are not in dispute. I have referred to the two licences Exhibits 4 and 6 and the corresponding bills of lading Exhibits 8 and 10. The facts of the case are not in dispute. I have referred to the two licences Exhibits 4 and 6 and the corresponding bills of lading Exhibits 8 and 10. The endorsements on the bills of lading were not made Exhibits in the case, but we have the evidence of P. W. 7 Budhram Sharma, proprietor of indo-Commercial Company and of Indra Chand P. W. 8, partner of srikrishna Subhakaran that the bills of lading were endorsed in favour of them respectively by the accused. Exhibits 7 and 9 are the applications for sales tax permits made to the commercial Tax Officers of the concerned charges for sales tax permits in respect of the consignments covered by the bills of lading Exhibits 8 and 10. The evidence of the Commercial Tax Officers, P. Ws 4 and 5 is that the permits were granted to the applicants. These permits were granted on November 1, 1961 in the one case and on November 28, 1961 in the other. 5. It is further in evidence that on October 31, 1961 Messrs indo-Commercial Company paid about Rs. 500/- to the appellant for the purpose of releasing the bill of lading Exhibit 8 and that the other firm Messrs. Srikrishna Subhakaran paid about the same amount to the appellant on October 25, 1961 for the purpose of releasing the bill of lading Exhibit 10 from the bank. Exhibits 20 and 21 are the two bills of entry passed by the Customs in respect of the consignments concerned and Exhibits 13 and 18 show that the two consignments were released by Customs on November 10, 1961, and December 14, 1961, respectively. The delivery was taken by the clearing agents the Bengal National Agency and the facts relating to this delivery have been deposed to by P. W. 9, Amal Kumar Chatterjee. 6. There is evidence in the case that Messrs Indo-Commercial Company and Srikrishna Subhakaran further paid the Customs dues in respect of the consignments and that subsequent to the delivery of the goods they made payments of the balance of the dues of the appellant. 6. There is evidence in the case that Messrs Indo-Commercial Company and Srikrishna Subhakaran further paid the Customs dues in respect of the consignments and that subsequent to the delivery of the goods they made payments of the balance of the dues of the appellant. It has, thus, been amply proved by the evidence in the case on record that the appellant did transfer the bills of lading on receipt of certain sums of money, that the transferees paid the Customs dues, appointed the clearing agent for the purpose of release of the goods from the port Commissioners and subsequently paid further amounts to the appellant. The question is whether on these facts it can be said that the relevant condition of the licence was violated. That condition which is to be found also in Order 5 (3) (ii) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 is to the following effect:- " (3) It shall be deemed to be a condition of every such licence- (ii) that the goods for the import of which a licence is granted shall be the property of the licensee at the time of clearance through Customs unless the said licensee is covered by a letter of authority issued by the licensing authority. " It is not the defence case that the appellant was covered by any such letter of authority as is referred to in the condition above and the point that falls for decision is whether in facts of this case the goods concerned remained the property of the appellant at the time of clearance through Customs. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that if the transaction was not a sale, as according to Mr. Poddar would be apparent from the evidence on record, property in the goods concerned must be held to have remained with the appellant up to the relevant time. According to the learned advocates appearing for the opposite parties the appellant must be held to have lost property in the goods with the endorsement of the bills of lading in favour of the two firms inasmuch as endorsement of a Bill of Lading in favour of another party amounts to transfer of title to the goods concerned. According to the learned advocates appearing for the opposite parties the appellant must be held to have lost property in the goods with the endorsement of the bills of lading in favour of the two firms inasmuch as endorsement of a Bill of Lading in favour of another party amounts to transfer of title to the goods concerned. In support of this proposition I was referred to section 1 of the Indian Bills of Lading Act IX of 1856 and to the decision in (1) Asiatic Steam Navigation Company Ltd. v. Jothalal Dharamshee and Co., A. I. R. 1959 Calcutta 479 and to paragraph 47 of the judgment in that case. The Indian Bills of Lading Act concerns itself with bills of lading in the hands of a bonafide holder for value and the question that was posed in paragraph 47 of the decision above was whether the rights under Bills of Lading can vest in the endorsee 'only' when the property in the goods shall pass upon or by reason of an endorsement thereon as contemplated in section 1 of the Indian Bills of Lading Act or whether it passes by virtue of the earlier payment of consideration for the related goods and the endorsement may be made for the purpose of completing the acquisition of title or perfecting it or putting a conclusive seal by providing the document of title or facilitating or protecting possession or possessory title. 7. The Indian Bills of Lading Act has not provided that a simple endorsement on a Bill of Lading transfers title to the property concerned as between the endorser and the endorsee. As a matter of fact, a Bill of Lading may be endorsed in favour of an agent for the purpose of facilitating the release of the goods from the Port. Whether a transfer of the bill of lading is equivalent to the transfer of the good is a matter of intention depending an the facts of a particular case. 8. So far as the present ease is concerned it is in my view unnecessary to enter into the question as to whether there was a sale of the goods concerned by the appellant to the two firms named above. The implied condition of the licences held by the appellant was that he must have property in the consignments at the time of clearing through Customs. The implied condition of the licences held by the appellant was that he must have property in the consignments at the time of clearing through Customs. The term 'property' connotes an entire bundle of rights in respect of the goods is question and if the entire bundle of rights be found to be not in possession of the person owning the goods he would not be in possession of such 'property' therein as is contemplated by the condition. This condition must be held to have some purpose behind it. Whatever that purpose might be, it appears necessary for the fulfilment thereof that the licensee must have property in the concerns goods at the time of clearance through Customs. If he loses the power of disposal over the goods before clearance as he would as a result of the contra with a commission agent that would undoubtedly be a violation of the condition. It may be that at the time the application for the licence the appellant had declared that he was not registered dealer under the Sales Ta Act and that he had no storing place of his own and it may be that for the purpose of clearance of the goods was required to enter into some sort a contract with a registered dealer. But that is no ground for the contra being such as to entail loss of power of complete control over the goods ; the time of clearance through Custom as required by the condition in question. The effect of the contract with the commission agent, even if the transaction may be held to be one such was that the appellant lost control over his right of possession and also his of disposal. Even if the entire de fence case be accepted the only control that the appellant retained over the goods as a result of he contract entered into by him was to dictal the price at which the same should sold. That much of control over the goods would not amount to such right of property over the same as is completed in the condition embodied in Order 5 (3) (ii) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. That condition is my view implies full property right in the concerned goods and any transaction relating to the goods which would infringe on the full proper rights would imply a violation of the condition. That condition is my view implies full property right in the concerned goods and any transaction relating to the goods which would infringe on the full proper rights would imply a violation of the condition. In this view of the matter must hold that the appellant was guilt of violation of the condition of this licence contemplated in order 5 (3) (ii) of the Orders and I agree with the leaned magistrate though on different grounds, that the appellant is guilty and punishable under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. 1947. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed.