JUDGMENT : J.R. Mudholkar, J. 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. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 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 & Co., (2) M/s. East India Commercial Corporation, (3) M/s. Shree Narayan & 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. 5. It is not disputed before us that a licence to export oil cake was obtained in the name of the firm M/s. Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., for the export of 75 tons of oil cake. All the steps for procuring the licence were admittedly taken by Palriwala Brothers. Even the firm contract with the overseas buyers was entered into by Palriwala Brothers and all the step for exporting the oil cake ostensibly in the name of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., were taken by the appellants. According to the appellants, however, they acted in this matter as the agents of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co. The appellants, while admitting that the oil cake which was exported belonged to the Shew Sakti Oil Mills, they were sold by the mills to the exporter i.e., Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co. The trying Magistrate held that the shipment was made by Palriwala Brothers with the knowledge and consent of the Calcutta representative of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., and that it was "practically made by that firm ......... The trying Magistrate held that the shipment was made by Palriwala Brothers with the knowledge and consent of the Calcutta representative of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., and that it was "practically made by that firm ......... though Palriwala Brothers or the Shew Sakti Oil Mills might have acted in the name of another firm and that, therefore, the offence under Section 5 of the Act was not made out. The High Court on the other hand held that the oil cake exported continued to be the property of Shew Sakti Oil Mills of Palriwala Brothers even at the time of export and did not belong to Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co. 6. While dismissing the Assistant Collector's appeal with respect to the offence under Sections 471/465, I.P.C. the High Court has observed : "......although we have found that the signature on behalf of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad firm in Exhibit 19 was not that of a representative of the firm but of an employee of Palriwala Brothers, still in view of our finding that a representative of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., had given his consent to the use of his firm's name for export, it must be held that the signatures `for Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co.,' in Exhibit 19 and the connected documents were made with the authority of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co. and, therefore, there was no forgery....." According to Mr. Purshottam the case of the prosecution was that whatever the appellants did was without the knowledge or consent of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., and the High Court having negatived the prosecution case in this behalf made out a new case for the prosecution by saying that even so the appellants were liable to be convicted on the ground that the oil cake exported continued to be the property of Shew Sakti Oil Mills or Palriwala Brothers. No doubt, charge No. 3 reads thus : "That you between 4th July, 1955 and 26th August, 1955 along with one S.N. Palriwala since absconding at Calcutta in contravention of Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act dishonestly and fraudulently exported certain goods to wit - linseed oil cakes under the cover of export licence Exhibit 19(4) and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and within may cognizance." No doubt also that the prosecution had alleged that the shipping bills for export were either forged or were false documents and that this case has been negatived both by the Presidency Magistrate and the High Court. All the same it has to be borne in mind that the gravamen of the offence under Section 5 of the Act read with Clause (3) of the order is the export of a commodity specified in Schedule I of the order and it does not require that in addition the person exporting the commodity should use as genuine either a forged document or a false document. The prosecution case concerning the export is set out thus in Paragraph 7 of the petition of complaint : "That the accused Nos. 1-3 who practically own and run the firm of Messrs Palriwala Brothers Ltd., Messrs Shree Shew Sakti Oil Mills. Ltd., Lakshmi Produce Co. Ltd., and Messrs Kedarnath Madanlal were not contented with the quota of 300 tons only to which they presumably were entitled at the rate of 75 tons for each of the firms. They accordingly conspired to obtain permission to ship in the names of the other firms and for that purpose obtained export licences from the Joint Chief Controller of Exports, Calcutta in the names of these firms. For obtaining these licences they had to make use of the forged documents. The other accused persons helped accused No. 3 in preparing these forged documents and in obtaining the said licences and in otherwise aiding and abetting in actually exporting more goods than they could lawfully do by making use of the forged documents in the name of these other concerns." 7. The other accused persons helped accused No. 3 in preparing these forged documents and in obtaining the said licences and in otherwise aiding and abetting in actually exporting more goods than they could lawfully do by making use of the forged documents in the name of these other concerns." 7. It will be seen that it contains a clear averment that what the firm of Palriwala Brothers exported was its own oil cake and the prosecution has established that the oil cake in question belonged to Shri Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd., which is practically owned and run by Palriwala Brothers. Upon a consideration of all these facts we are satisfied that no new case was made out by the High Court. Mr. Purshottam, however, sought to argue that though initially the oil cake belonged to Shew Sakti Oil Mills it had been sold by them to Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co. But it has been found by the High Court that it continued to belong to Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd. That being a finding of fact cannot be allowed to be reopened at this stage. It is true that the shipping documents are in the name of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co. But that was bound to be the case inasmuch as the licence which was utilised for exporting the oil cake itself stood in the name of that firm. The appellants admit that it was in fact they who took all the necessary steps right from the stage of making an application for a licence upto the preparation of the shipping documents though according to them they did so as agents of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., except exhibits 16/1/1/ and 16/1/3 which, according to them, were signed by one M. Hanifi who was a representative of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co. Upon a consideration of the evidence the High Court has, however, said that the signature reading : "M. Hanifi, for Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co.," is not that of any representative of that firm. Upon a consideration of the evidence the High Court has, however, said that the signature reading : "M. Hanifi, for Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co.," is not that of any representative of that firm. Relying upon the evidence of P.W. 3 Girija Sankar Saha the High Court has held that at the relevant time there was no employee of that firm named M. Hanifi in Calcutta and that upon a comparison of certain writings of S.N. Palriwala, the third partner of the firm of Palriwala Brothers, who is said to be absconding, it has found that the signature of M. Hanifi appeared to have been forged by S.N. Palriwala. If, in fact there was any substance in the contention of the appellants that `Shew Sakti Oil Mills had sold the linseed cake which was exported under the licence in question to Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., it should have been easy for the former to establish the fact by producing their account books. No doubt the account books are alleged by the appellants to have been seized by the Customs authorities and to be in their possession. But Mr. Purushottam frankly conceded that these account books could not have contained any entries pertaining to the transaction. He, however, relied on Ex. 108 which was a bill of exchange for � 2,065-9-11 purported to have been drawn by Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., on the overseas buyers Messrs H.M.F. Faure & Co., Ltd., London payable to the order of Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd., and contended that this clearly indicated that Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., were paying the price of the oil cake to the oil mills. In the first place this bill of exchange has also been drawn by M. Hanifi on behalf of the firm and the High Court has found that Hanifi's signature thereon has been put by S.N. Palriwala. Therefore, this document cannot advance the appellant's case any further. Secondly Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., if they were the real exporters, would not have drawn a bill for the entire price realisable by them from the overseas buyers in favour of the oil mills because what would be owed to the mills would be only the price for which the oil cake had been sold by them to Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co. In the ordinary course of business Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad & Co., were expected to undertake the export of 75 tons of oil cake for making a profit and would not have agreed to pay the oil mills the whole of the price for which they were selling the oil cake to the overseas buyers. This document, therefore, instead of being of any assistance to the appellants affords further support to the prosecution case that the oil cake continued to be the property of the appellants through Shew Sakti Oil Mills and did not become the property of Haji Ismail Nur Muhammad and Co., in whose name the export licence stood. 8. That being the position we uphold the judgment of the High Court and dismiss this appeal.