JUDGMENT: The Additional Director, Export Inspection Agency, Madras filed complaint against the accused before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-I), Madras under Secs.6(c), 11(1) and (3) read with Sec.12 of Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 contending as follows: The complainant is the Export Inspection Agency, Madras and it is established by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963. As per order dated 7.1.78 issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, the complainant is duly authorised to file the complaint in his official capacity. A-1 is a private limited company having its office at 63/1-A, Muttukadu Road, Neelangarai, Madras-600 041 and a company within the meaning of Explanation (a) to Sec.12 of the said Act engaged in the processing, freezing and export of frozen shrimps (a notified item under fish and fishery products). A-2 to A-6 are the directors of A-1 company. The Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 as amended in 1984 was enacted in order to provide for the sound development of the export trade of India through quality control and inspection and for matters connected with it. In exercise of powers conferred by the said Act, the Central Government issued notification in S.O.No.4007 dated 31.12.1977 in suppression of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of commerce No.S.O.771, dated 6.3.1965 and the notification of Government of India in the late Ministry of Foreign Trade No.S.0.5368 dated 7.12.1971 which came into force on 6.3.65. Under clause (1) of this notification, fish and fishery products have been notified to be subject to quality control and inspection prior to export. Under clause (2) thereof, the specifications as set out in the Annexure to the notification have been recognised as the standard specification for fish and fishery products. Prior to 31.12.1977, the quality control and pre-shipment inspection of fish and fishery products was confined to the end-product inspection. An in-process quality control scheme (IPQC) with total surveillance of the entire processing operations was introduced to ensure the overall quality of the export products as per the Government of India notification S.O.4007, dated 3.12.1977. Prior to 31.12.1977, the quality control and pre-shipment inspection of fish and fishery products was confined to the end-product inspection. An in-process quality control scheme (IPQC) with total surveillance of the entire processing operations was introduced to ensure the overall quality of the export products as per the Government of India notification S.O.4007, dated 3.12.1977. Sub-clause (4) of clause 1 of S.O.4007 prohibits the export of fish and fishery products unless accompanied by a certificate issued by any of the Export Inspection Agencies established under Sec.7 of the Act to the effect that the fish and fishery products conform to the specifications as set out in this regard. Export Inspection Agency, Madras is one of the agencies authorised to exercise the powers, and discharge the functions relating to compulsory quality control and pre-shipment inspection under the said Act and the orders/rules thereunder. A new Modified In-Process Quality Control (IPQC) system was introduced subsequently. Only those processing units which have already been approved under IPQC system and who have the following facilities are eligible to be accorded approval under MIPQC: (i) The processor should have necessary facilities for the transport of raw materials from fish landing centers/ procurement centers to the unit and also for transporting finished products from the unit to the wharf for shipment. For such purpose only insulated/refrigerated vehicles shall be used. (ii) Adequate facilities for raw material receiving, pre-processing, processing, freezing, storage and inspection shall be available. (iii) The processing unit shall have competent technical personnel to supervise pre-processing, processing and packing operations. (iv) The unit shall have its own laboratory or arrangement with an independent testing laboratory approved by Export Inspection Council or the Marine Products Export Development Authority to carry out micro biological examination. In case of an exporter covered under IPQC system, each and every export consignment of Fish and Fishery products is inspected organoleptically and bacteriologically by the Export Inspection Agency prior to certification. On the other hand in case of exporters covered under MIPQC system, Export Inspection Agency issues certificates on receipt of intimation from the processor that the production pertaining to the export consignment had passed the organoleptic and bacteriological tests. A-1 was approved under I.P.Q.C. system till 24th March, 1986. This unit was approved under M.I.P.Q.C. system with effect from 25th March, 1986. A-1 was approved under I.P.Q.C. system till 24th March, 1986. This unit was approved under M.I.P.Q.C. system with effect from 25th March, 1986. It may be added that this approval is granted after the performance of the processing unit is considered satisfactory by a panel of experts constituted for the purpose. The panel of experts visited the processing unit of A.1 on 2.7.1986 to review the performance of the unit under M.I.P.Q.C. and to assess the analytical procedures and found that the performance of the Technologist was not satisfactory and his performance may be monitored continuously by Export Inspection Agency, Madras for one month and a report submitted to the Panel for further consideration. The accused processing unit was duly informed of the observations of the panel for necessary action. After a period of two weeks, A.1 informed the Export Inspection Agency that the deficiencies had been rectified and requested for another review by the panel. The panel of experts visited the accused unit on 5.8.1986 and observed that there was no improvement in the performance of the technologist and they further found that the technologist and the Supervisors virtually have no control over the floor staff, there was no control and proper maintenance of the cold storage, sterilisation was not being done by following the standard procedures and all the analysis in respect of water and ice was found to be wrong and more defects were found by the panel of experts. From the observations of the Experts panel after their visits on 2.7.1986 and 5.8.1986, it was found that the performance of the Technologist and the unit had not at all been satisfactory. But, the accused unit obtained a number of certificates from the Export Inspection Agency-Madras during the period from 25.3.1986 to 5.8.1986 and the Export Inspection Agency issued the certificates on the basis of the declaration given by the accused processing unit in their notices of intimation that the production goes had passed organoleptically and bacteriologically. So, it is seen that the accused unit had given false declaration and obtained certificates fraudulently thereby contravening the provisions of Export of Fish and Fishery Products (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1977 and the accused are liable to be punished under Secs.11(2) and 11(3) of the said Act. So, it is seen that the accused unit had given false declaration and obtained certificates fraudulently thereby contravening the provisions of Export of Fish and Fishery Products (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1977 and the accused are liable to be punished under Secs.11(2) and 11(3) of the said Act. A-2 to A-6 are the Directors of the first accused and hence they are also liable to be proceeded under Secs.11(l), 11(2)and 11(3) read with Sec.12 of the said Act. 2. The complaint was taken on file and the case of the complainant on the evidence of P.Ws. is as follows: P.W.3 is a Joint Director of Export Inspection Agency-Madras and he visited the accused firm which was approved under I.P.Q.C. system with effect from 7.3.1986 and approved by M.I.P.Q.C. system with effect from 25.3.1986, on 5.8.1986 along with a panel of experts for review of the process under M.I.P.Q.C. system, and found some defects and reported them to the accused unit by the panel’s report Ex.P-9. The defects mentioned in Ex.P-9 are major defects and with those defects, the unit cannot obtain export worthiness certificate. During the operation of M.I.P.Q.C. process, the accused unit should have received worthiness certificate under request and so, the worthiness certificates were obtained by me accused fraudulently with false declarations. In the light of the report of the experts, the certificates were issued permitting the accused to export fish only on receipt of intimation Ex.P-5 series from the accused company. Based on the intimation only the certificates were issued Ex.P-6 series. So, on false declarations made by the accused company, the certificates were issued and the accused company had fraudulently obtained these worthiness certificates. P.W.I, Additional Director of Export Inspection Agency at Madras, speaks in his evidence that the Director of Inspection at New Delhi issued the consent order on 17.1.1987 authorising him to initiate the prosecution against the accused if the product comes under the purview of the Act by virtue of the Notification under S.O.No.4007 Ex.P-3. After receiving the sanction, the complaint was filed. 3. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who tried the case found the first accused guilty under Sec.1(1)(i) of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000. 4. After receiving the sanction, the complaint was filed. 3. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who tried the case found the first accused guilty under Sec.1(1)(i) of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000. 4. On appeal, the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras allowed it setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and acquitted the accused. 5. As against that judgment, the present appeal is filed by the complaint. 6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused gave false declaration and obtained certificates fraudulently when the performance of the accused processing unit was considered not satisfactory by the panel of experts constituted for that purpose. 7. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the accused unit was approved under M.I.P.Q.C. system with effect from 28.3.1986 and that approval was granted after the performance of the processing unit was found satisfactory’ by a panel of experts constituted for that purpose and when such approval was granted, after the inspection of the unit by the panel of experts in July, 1986, it cannot be stated that for the prior period from 25.3.1986, the accused unit gave false declaration and obtained certificates fraudulently and have contravened the provisions of the Act. He further stressed the point that when approval was granted for the performance of the processing unit finding it satisfactory, it cannot be stated that at the time even when the inspection was not made and for the period prior to inspection, false declarations were made and certificates were obtained fraudulently. 8. The accused unit was running under M.I.P.Q.C. system after the approval was granted with effect from 25.3.1986. The panel of experts visited the accused unit on 2.7.1986 to review the performance of the unit under M.I.P.Q.C. system and to access the analytical procedure for isolation of V.Cholerae and it observed as under: "(i) The performance of the technologist was not satisfactory. His performance may be monitered continuously by Export Inspection Agency-Madras for one month and a report submitted to the panel for further consideration. (ii) During this period certificate of inspection may be issued by Export Inspection Agency after complete inspection and testing of the products and the inspection fee may be levied at the rate prescribed for I.P.Q.C. units. This monitoring will take effect from 6th July, 1986 for all the products pressed from that date. (ii) During this period certificate of inspection may be issued by Export Inspection Agency after complete inspection and testing of the products and the inspection fee may be levied at the rate prescribed for I.P.Q.C. units. This monitoring will take effect from 6th July, 1986 for all the products pressed from that date. (iii) Incubator/Hot Air Oven should be maintained with suitable thermometers. (iv) Required number of petro dishes must be purchased to cope up with the quantum of work. (v) Polyvalent Sera for V.Cholerae must be procured. (vi) The procedures prescribed by Export Inspection Agency for detection of V.Cholerae must be followed strictly. (vii) The calculation of the bacteriological count done by the Technologist must be carried out as laid down in the Bacteriological Manual." The accused processing unit was also duly informed of the observations of the panel. Then the accused informed the Export Inspection Agency that the deficiencies observed by the panel had been rectified and requested for another review by the panel. Accordingly, the panel of experts visited the accused unit on 5.8.1986 and they observed as under: "There is no improvement in the performance of the Technologist as regards interpretation, calculation and recording of analytical results since the earlier review on 2nd July, 1986." The panel further found the deficiencies as under: "(a) The Technologist and the Supervisors virtually have no control over the floor staff. (b) There is no control and proper maintenance of the cold storage. (c) Sterlisation of petridishes and pipettes are not being done by following standard procedures. (d) Blank plates (petro dishes) are found to have many colonies. (e) All the analysis with respect to water and ice are found to be wrong. (f) The Technologist had not carried out organoleptic and bacteriological tests on the products bearing code Nos.6G 21 to 6G 27. (g) In evaluating Total Plate Count the general bacteriological principles to consider the number of colonies in a plate falling in the range of 30-300 has not been judiciously followed. (h) Keeping in view of the poor performance of the Technologist and the unit, the unit shall be continuously monitored for a period of 3 months from the date of the present visit. (h) Keeping in view of the poor performance of the Technologist and the unit, the unit shall be continuously monitored for a period of 3 months from the date of the present visit. During this period certificates of inspection may be issued after complete inspection and testing of each day’s production for export by the official of Export Inspection Agency-Madras, charging inspection fee as per the prescribed rate for the units operating under I.P.Q.C. scheme. The Panel further recommends that the Technologist of the unit should continue to exercise necessary drills of inspection and testing of each day’s production and maintain records thereof as prescribed for the operation of the M.P.I.Q.C." The complainant contends that from the observations of the experts panel after their visits on 2.7.1986 and 5.8.1986, it is seen that the performance of the Technologist and the unit had not at all been satisfactory, but the accused processing unit had obtained a number of certificates from the Export Inspection Agency, Madras during the period from 25.3.1986 to 5.8.1986 and the Export Inspection Agency had issued the certificates on the basis of the declarations given by the accused in the notices of intimation that the production codes had passed organoleptically and bacteriologically and in the light of the assessment by the Expert Panels, it can be seen that the unit had given false declarations and obtained the certificates fraudulently thereby contravening the provisions of Export of Fish and Fishery Products (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1977 and hence, the accused is liable to be punished under Sec.1(2) and (3) of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act. 9. P.W.2, the Deputy Director of Export Inspection Agency, Madras states that he received Ex.P-5 series intimation from the accused company and under the intimation they certified that the consignment processed in accordance with levels of controls mentioned under Modified in-process quality control scheme for fish and fishery products and basing on the intimations, he has issued certificates permitting them to export. So, the complainant states that only on the intimations given by the accused company, the certificates were issued. P.W.3 also states that based on the report submitted by the technologist an intimation request for issue of export working certificate will be applied by the processor company to their agency and on receipt of Ex.P-5 series from the accused company Ex.P-6 series certificates were issued. P.W.3 also states that based on the report submitted by the technologist an intimation request for issue of export working certificate will be applied by the processor company to their agency and on receipt of Ex.P-5 series from the accused company Ex.P-6 series certificates were issued. P.W.3 visited the accused firm on 5.8.1986 along with the panel of experts as member of that panel and the experts gave the report under Ex.P-9. P.W.3 states that the defects stated in Ex.P-9 are major defects and with those defects, the accused company cannot obtain the export worthiness certificates and if those defects had come to the knowledge of the Export Inspection Agency, it would not have accepted the intimations. 10. It is significant to note that the inspections were made by the expert panel only in July and August. The intimations and corresponding certificates Exs.P-5 series and P-6 series relate to the period from 7.4.1986 to 28.6.1986. So, during the relevant period for which the certificates were issued, there was no inspection of the unit by the panel of experts and only after that period, the inspection was done. Basing on the inspection done subsequently after the period covered under the certificates, the complainant had come forward with the complainant that when they inspected the accused factory, they found the accused factory did not conform to the provisions of the Act and there were defects in the unit and the performance was not found satisfactory and since those defects were found out subsequently after the period covered under the certificates and as the unit was not running fulfilling the conditions laid down under the Act, it has to be taken that the accused company gave false declaration and obtained certificates fraudulently. From the Inspection done subsequently after the period covered under the certificates, it cannot be stated that during the period, the factory was running with those defects and the certificates were obtained fraudulently. P.W.3 admits he cannot say if the technologist of the accused unit made any application for certificates on the basis of his testing alone and he cannot say if the accused company filed any declaration with the defects mentioned in Ex.P-9. P.W.3 unable to say whether the accused company filed any declaration with the defects mentioned in Ex.P-9 which according to him are major. P.W.3 unable to say whether the accused company filed any declaration with the defects mentioned in Ex.P-9 which according to him are major. The case of the complainant that the accused, between 25.3.1986 and 5.8.1986 made false declaration in order to get certificates cannot be said to have been proved. When there is no evidence with regard to actual testing of goods for which the certificates have been obtained which goods have already been exported by the accused company on the basis of those certificates, the case of the complainant cannot be accepted and it cannot be presumed that because of the subsequent inspection by the panel of experts when the processing of the fish in the accused unit was found unsatisfactory the processing done by the unit for the prior period was not proper and the certificates were obtained fraudulently by giving false declaration. Only when there is actual evidence on the aspect that the processing was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act, it can be stated that the processing was not done properly. The learned Sessions Judge has also taken the view that in the case of this nature, presumption cannot take place of proof. 11. Sec.114 of the Evidence Act does not lay any such rule with regard to presumption which the courts must consider and weigh with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been observed in East India Trading Co. v. Badat & Co., A.I.R. 1959 Bom. 414, that Sec.114 is wide enough to permit the court to raise a presumption not only with regard to oral evidence, but also with regard to documentary evidence. In Chimna v. State, A.I.R. 1961 Raj. 35, it has been held that, “Whether or not a presumption under Sec.114 can be drawn in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that after the expiry of any particular period, no presumption under Sec.114 can be drawn.” Sec.114 of the Evidence Act prescribes that the Court may presume a fact. This section allows the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. This section allows the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Whether in a given circumstances a presumption can be raised or not would depend upon the facts of each case. The words “may presume” in Sec.114 leave it to the court to make or not to make the presumption according to the circumstances of the case. Sec.114 does not lay down any hard and fast rule with regard to the circumstances in which any fact or fact is to be presumed. It has been held in Mahabir Singh v. Anant Ram, A.I.R. 1966 All. 214, that Sec.114 provides a guiding principle that the courts shall be guided by its own experience and knowledge of the common course of natural events, and public and private affairs. So, the effect of Sec.114 is to make it clear that the courts of justice are to use their own common sense and experience in judging the effect of particular facts. A presumption in itself is no evidence; it only makes out a prima facie case for the party concerned; it is a rule concerning evidence. It has been held in Ram Jos v. Surendra Nath, A.I.R. 1980 All. 385, that, “The presumptions under the Evidence Act are only the inferences which a logical and reasonable mind normally draws.” “The question of presumption has to be kept distinct from the question of proof. For the purpose of raising presumption what has to be seen is the state of affairs prevailing on the date on which the presumption is sought to be invoked.” 12. For the case on hand, during the period when the certificates were obtained, there was no inspection by the panel of experts and it was not found that the processing unit was having any defects and so, the goods processed were not worthy of export. For the inspection done long after the period for which the certificates were obtained, it cannot be presumed that during the period when the certificates were obtained that is long prior to the testing of the processing unit by the panel of experts, the processing unit was having the same defects and the certificates were fraudulently obtained. For the inspection done long after the period for which the certificates were obtained, it cannot be presumed that during the period when the certificates were obtained that is long prior to the testing of the processing unit by the panel of experts, the processing unit was having the same defects and the certificates were fraudulently obtained. It has to be borne in mind that the order of approval was granted to the processing unit under M.I.P.Q.C. system after satisfying the necessary conditions for the export business and only then, it was approved and the processing unit was allowed to run the business, by the Export Inspection Agency. Under such circumstances, the complainant cannot act on presumption and file the complaint against the accused stating that because of the finding of defects subsequently after the period for which certificates were obtained, these defects would date back to the period for which certificates were obtained and the accused obtained those certificates by giving false declarations. When the goods have been exported after obtaining necessary certificates, at a later point of time, after subsequent inspection by the panel authorities, the complainant is not at all entitled to contend that the processing unit was suffering from defects and it was not eligible to get the quality control certificate and the certificates obtained earlier were obtained fraudulently. The complainant cannot presume things and lodge a complaint against the accused when actually there is basis on legal principals to lodge the complaint. There is no proof that during the period when the certificates were obtained, the processing done was not proper and the accused company had contravened the provisions of the Act. 13. The complainant states that the accused gave false declarations and obtained certificates fraudulently. By giving false declaration means, the complaint must prove that the accused had the knowledge that the declarations they had given are false to their knowledge and thus enabling them to obtain the certificates fraudulently on such false declarations. The complainant has not proved so. As the processing was done by the accused after obtaining approval from the Export Inspection Agency, it cannot be stated that they had the knowledge that the declarations they gave were false and with such declaration they obtained the certificates fraudulently. The complainant has not proved so. As the processing was done by the accused after obtaining approval from the Export Inspection Agency, it cannot be stated that they had the knowledge that the declarations they gave were false and with such declaration they obtained the certificates fraudulently. The benefit of self-inspection and self-quality control was confirmed on the first accused with effect from 25.3.1986 as required facilities were available in the unit of the first accused. On the approval granted to it, the accused company had the benefit of self-inspection and self-quality control and it gave declarations. On the strength of the inspections made subsequently on 2.7.1986 and 5.8.1986, it cannot be concluded that for the period covered under Ex.P-6 series, the declaration given under Ex.P-5 series were false. As approval was granted, the accused cannot be expected to know the defects when it applied for the certificates and it cannot be stated to be a fraudulent action on the part of the accused. There is no proof that the appellant had the intention or knowledge that the quality of the fish and fishery product for which declaration Ex.P-5 series were given did not satisfy the quality required. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the accused company made false declarations and obtained certificates fraudulently. For fraudulent act on the part of the accused, absolutely there is no evidence. Only on the strength of the approval granted, the accused company, it gave declarations and obtained certificates. Under such circumstances, it cannot be stated that there was fraudulent action on the part of the accused. It has not at all been established that the accused fraudulently obtained the certificates by giving false declarations. 14. Sec.11(1) of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 states that if any person contravenes any order under clause (d) of Sec.6, or fraudulently obtains a certificate under Sec.7, or fraudulently affixes or applies any such mark or seal as is referred to in Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.8, he shall, on conviction, be punished as provided thereunder. Sec.6 of the said Act reads as follows: “If the Central Government, after consulting the Council, is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for the development of the export trade of India, it may, by order published in the Official Gazette. .... .... Sec.6 of the said Act reads as follows: “If the Central Government, after consulting the Council, is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for the development of the export trade of India, it may, by order published in the Official Gazette. .... .... (c) establish, adopt or recognise one or more standard specifications for a notified commodity; (d) prohibit the export in the course of international trade of a notified commodity unless it is accompanied by a certificate issued under Sec.7 that the commodity satisfies the conditions relating to quality control or inspection, or it has affixed or applied to it a mark or seal recognised by the Central Government as indicating that it conforms to the standard specifications applicable to it under clause (c).” Sec.6 deals with the power of the Central Government in regard to quality control and inspection. If the Central Government deems it, it may by order published in the Official Gazette prohibit the export in the course of international trade of a notified commodity as is specified in clause (d) thereunder. Sec.7(1) states that, “The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish, or recognise subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, agencies, for quality control or inspection or both.” Sec.7(3) states that, “If, after the examination, the agency is of opinion of that the commodity satisfies the standard specifications laid down in respect of it under Sec.6 or, as the case may be, any other specifications stipulated in the export contract, it may issue a certificate that the commodity satisfies the conditions relating to quality control and inspection.” Sec.11 states that if any person contravenes any order under clause (d) of Sec.6, or fraudulently obtains a certificate under Sec.7 is liable to be convicted and punished. On the strength of the approval granted, the accused processing unit processed the goods, gave declarations and obtained certificates and also exported the goods. For such export of goods much earlier to the inspection of the unit by the panel of experts, the defects found by the panel of experts subsequently will not establish that the specifications laid down were not satisfied for the prior period covered under Ex.P-6 series. 15. For such export of goods much earlier to the inspection of the unit by the panel of experts, the defects found by the panel of experts subsequently will not establish that the specifications laid down were not satisfied for the prior period covered under Ex.P-6 series. 15. In the absence of any specific evidence that during the period covered under Ex.P-6 series, there were defects in the processing unit of the accused by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the processing unit was defective as found subsequently when inspected by the panel of experts, and with those conditions found out subsequently at the time of inspection, the procession was carried out in the accused unit when Ex.P-6 series were obtained and the complainant cannot presume things and act on such presumptions for implicating the accused for contravening the provisions of the Act. 16. From the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the accused had not contravened any provisions of the Act and they are not liable to be punished. The learned Sessions Judge has considered all these aspects and has set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras and acquitted the accused and ordered for refund of the fine amount also. I find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge. 17. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge is confirmed.