Judgment :- 1. These revision petitions are directed against the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Palghat in Calender Oases 164 and 165 of 1963 rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the accused about the maintainability of the prosecution. The accused in both these cases, Sri, Parameswaran, is a licensee under the Kerala State Cement Control Order, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). On 3-5-1963 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palghat visited the premises where cement had been stocked and found various irregularities, which it is unnecessary to mention here and as that amounted to breach of the conditions of the licence granted to the licensee, two cases were launched against him for offences punishable under S.24 of the Industries [Development and Regulation] Act, 1951 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. When the case came up for hearing the accused raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the prosecution on the ground that even if there were any breach of the conditions of the licence it would not amount to a breach of the order which alone would amount to an offence under S.24 of the Act. 2. Clause 1 of S.18-G of the Act empowers the Central Government by notified order to make provision for regulating the supply and distribution of any article or class of articles relating to any scheduled industry. S.25 of the Act empowers the Central Government to delegate its powers in this behalf to the State Government or any other authority. By virtue of this delegated authority the State Government has made the Kerala State Cement Control Order, 1961. Clause 3 of the Order reads: 'No person shall carry on any business as a stockist except under and in accordance with the provisions of this order and the terms and conditions of a licence granted to him." Clause 4 deals with the form of application for licence. Clause.5 (1) deals with the refusal of the licence and Clause.5 (2) with the grant of the licence. Clause.5 (1) deals with the refusal of the licence and Clause.5 (2) with the grant of the licence. Clause.5 (2) reads: "Where an application for a licence is not refused under sub-clause (I), the licensing authority shall grant the applicant a licence in form B. Every such licence shall be subject to the conditions annexed to that form." Section 24 of the Act is the penal section which imposes penalty among other things for contravention of any order made under S.18-G. The question that arises for decision is whether breach of the conditions in the licence would attract the penal provisions contained in S.24. What is argued by the learned counsel is that a breach of the conditions of licence is not a breach of the Order under which the licence was granted and that no offence under S.24 is committed if a condition of the licence is contravened. 3. In support of this position learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. East India Commercial Co. Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (A. I. R.1962 SC. 1893). In that case the appellant company had brought into India from U. S. A. large quantities of electric goods under a licence. The licence was subject to the condition that the goods would be utilised only for the company's use in the factory and that no portion thereof would be sold. Goods after reaching India were cleared out of customs on payment of customs duty, but later on information being received by the Chief Controller of Imports that the company was selling goods to various parties, the matter was investigated and the goods were seized under a search warrant. A criminal prosecution launched against the director of the company under S.5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and for cheating ended in the accused being discharged. Thereafter the Collector of Customs started proceedings under S.167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with S.3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and called upon the appellant by notice to show cause why the sale proceeds remaining in court should not be confiscated. The appellant company thereupon filed an application in the High Court for the issue of an appropriate writ including a.writ in the nature of prohibition against the Collector of Customs from continuing with the proceedings initiated by him. The appellant company thereupon filed an application in the High Court for the issue of an appropriate writ including a.writ in the nature of prohibition against the Collector of Customs from continuing with the proceedings initiated by him. The application was dismissed by the High Court and the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act can be attracted only if there was a contravention of the Order issued under S.3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Import Trade Control Notification dated July 1,1943 issued in the case was in the following terms: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of R.84 of the Defence of India Rules, the Central Government is pleased .... to prohibit the bringing into British India by sea, land or air from any place outside India of any goods of the descriptions specified in the schedule hereto annexed except the following namely .... (xiii) any goods of the descriptions specified in the schedule which are covered by a special licence issued by any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government." The goods imported were specified in the schedule. The order prima facie did not impose a condition in the matter of issuing a licence for the specified goods. On March 6,1948 another notification was issued by the Ministry of Commerce which stated that any officer issuing a licence under clauses (viii) to (xiv) of the Notification of the Government of India in the late department of commerce No. 23-ITC,43 dated the 1st July, 1943, may issue the same subject to one or more of the conditions stated below: "(i) that goods covered by the licence shall not be disposed of or otherwise dealt with without the written permission of the licensing authority or any person duly authorised by it; XX X X (v) that such other conditions may be imposed which the licensing authority considers to be expedient from the administrative point of view and which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act." Thus this order did not provide for a condition in the licence that subsequent to the import the goods should not be sold. Their Lordships took the second notification as a public notice for general information issued by the Ministry of Commerce which cannot be considered as an order issued under S.3 of the Act and it was held that the infringement of a condition imposed by such a notification would not amount to an infringement of the order and therefore the said infringement would not attract. S.167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. This decision, therefore, has absolutely no application to the facts of this case. In this case Clause.3 of the Order contains two prohibitions; firstly that no person shall carry on any business as a stockist of cement except under and in accordance with the provisions of the Order; and secondly except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. So any stockist or licensee who does anything in violation of the provisions of the Order or in violation of the terms and conditions of the licence would be contravening Clause.3 of the Order and such a person would be liable to be proceeded against under S.24 of the Act. The conditions of the licence form part and parcel of the Order. The terms of the licence are embodied in Form B annexed to the Order itself. So the violation of any conditions incorporated in Form B amounts to contravention of the Order and comes within the mischief of S.24 of the Act. 4. In support of the view that I take, I may refer to the case in M/s. Yasvadan Bros. v. C. T. A. Pillai (A. I. R.1962 Born. 249). There fifty two cases of wired glass belonging to the petitioners' company were ordered to be confiscated under S.167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with S.3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The petitioners challenged the order on the ground that the goods were validly imported under the import licence and the subsequent clearance after importation did not constitute violation of any of the restrictions and prohibitions imposed under the Import Trade Control Order, 1955 and even if there was breach of the conditions of the licence it would not amount to breach of the provisions of the Order or the Act and that no action could therefore be taken under S.167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. Under Cl. Under Cl. (3) of the above-said Order it is clearly provided that no person shall import any goods of the description specified in schedule I except under and in accordance with a licence. It would accordingly be necessary for an importer to hold a licence for importation of goods specified in schedule I of the Order. The act of import of such goods by an importer without a licence would directly contravene the provisions of Cl. (3) of the Order. An importer is also prohibited from importing goods mentioned in the schedule except in accordance with a licence. The licence itself also contains conditions so that importation by an importer holding a licence after committing breach of the conditions would necessarily be in contravention of Cl. (3) of the Order. The learned judge observed: "Having regard to the provisions of S.167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, S.5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Cls.3 and 5 of the Import Trade (Control) Order a contravention of the compulsory condition mentioned in Clause.5(3) of the Import Trade (Control) Order constitutes an offence under S.167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. Importation of goods mentioned in Schedule.1 of the Control Order without a licence or by a person who himself is not authorised to import the goods or in breach of conditions in a licence would also directly constitute such an offence." Another case that may usefully be referred to is State Government of M. P. v. Nazafikhan (AIR. 1953 Nag. 263). Their Lordships had to deal with the terms of the Central Province and Berar Yarn Dealers Licensing Order, 1949. Clause.3 of that Order was in the following terms: "Save as hereinafter provided, no person shall deal in yarn except under and is accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the licensing authority." It was held: "If the dealer fails to observe any of the conditions mentioned in his licence, he deals with the commodity in contravention of the conditions laid down in Clause.3 of the order. Thus a breach of the condition of the licence implies a breach of Clause.3 of the order and is made punishable under S.7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act.". The case in Hubli Electricity Go. v. The Province of Bombay (AIR. 1949 P. C. 136) may also be referred to. Thus a breach of the condition of the licence implies a breach of Clause.3 of the order and is made punishable under S.7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act.". The case in Hubli Electricity Go. v. The Province of Bombay (AIR. 1949 P. C. 136) may also be referred to. The question there was, whether the performance of condition (vi) of the schedule incorporated in the licence by S.3(2)(f) of the Electricity Act is required by the licensee by or under the Act. Their Lordships held: "The scheduled conditions, unless excluded or modified, necessarily form part of the licence to be granted under the Act: the licence is required to be operated in accordance with these conditions and not otherwise and the authority to operate the licence is derived from the Act. To this it may be added that the latter part of S.3 (2) (f) expressly provides that the scheduled conditions are to apply to the undertaking and that S.47 provides for penalties judicially exigible on breach of the conditions. Performance of the scheduled conditions may not on a strict reading be required of the licensee 'by' the Act it is clearly required 'under' the Act." It, therefore, follows that breach of the conditions of the licence would be an offence punishable under S.24 of the Act. The view taken by the District Magistrate is correct and calls for no interference. The revision petitions are dismissed. Dismissed.