Criminal Appeal No 75 of 1979
From the Judgment and Order dated 62
1976 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No 636 of 1973
Raghunath Singh Amicus Curiae for the Appellant
AS Bhasme and AM Khanwilkar for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
The appellant Shivaji Patil was ac quitted by the Additional Sessions Judge Kolhapur of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Tulashiram Sutar but on appeal the High Court by its judgment dated February 6 1976 set aside the order of acquittal and convicted him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life
The house of deceased Tulashiram in Village Rashivade adjoins the temple of Shri Ambabai and in front of the temple there is open place
The deceased along with his wife Parvatibai two children and parents was living in the house
Cousin brothers of the deceased and their mother were living in the adjoining house
Vyanku Sutar belonging to the brother hood of deceased was also living in the same village
The deceased had illic it relation with Vyanku s wife Akkatai
Parvatibai claimed to have caught them in the sex act in sugarcane fields
The accused Shivaji and Vyanku were friends
On January 301972 at about 7 or 730 PM Tulashiram returned to the house after performing his role described as Sasankathi in the festival of Mahi Poornima
In the house Parvatibai her mother in law Tanubai her husband s sister Malutai 402 and her husband s cousin brother s wife Shalubai were present
The male members namely deceased s father Pandu rang Sutar his brother Soundappa and servant named Shama had gone to another village called Kote
Tulashiram asked his mother Tanubai to prepare tea and thereafter he went out and sat on the foot steps of the temple at a distance of about 15 to 20 feet from the house
What followed can best be reproduced in words of Parvat ibai as PW 3 at the trial After the tea was ready I started going out of the house to call for my husband when I went to the front door of my house I saw the accused Shivaji hitting my husband with a stick on his head and running away
I saw him running in the direction of the by lane
I saw my husband failing down from the steps and lying on the ground near the Deepmal
I saw him rubbing his feet on the ground in agony and blood was coming from the injury on his head
I could see this in the light of the tube light
I went near my husband and started calling him
He could not speak
Hence I raise a hue and cry and my mother in law and sister in law Malubai and Shalibai and Vishnu Patil came there
I did not see anybody else nearby then as I was busy attending to my husband
My husband had become unconscious due to the head injuries and froth had come out of his mouth
Myself Vishnu Patil and sister in law bodily lifted my husband and took him to the house  
Somebody went and brought a local doctor named Jayant Patil
The doctor came there examined and treated my husband and advised him to be removed to his dispen sary
My husband was accordingly taken there but I did not go as my small children were crying and I was prevented from going there
My children had frightened
In the morning next day I came to know that my husband was removed to CPR Hospital at Kolhapur
Hence in the morning myself my mother in law and others went to Kolhapur by Yelavade Kolhapur Bus reaching there at about 830 AM
When we reached the CPR Hospital my brother in law came there crying saying that my husband had overnight succumbed to his injuries
Hence myself and my mother in law started crying and shouting
Hence some villagers brought a taxi we were 403 asked to sit in the taxi and we were taken to Rashivade even without showing the dead body to us
We reached Rashivade at about 11 AM
After reaching home we were crying in agony and our house became full with females and I did not notice who others had come there Vishnu Patil deposed that he was returning from his sugarcane crushing site and while passing by the temple he found deceased Tulashiram lying injured in front of the steps of the temple and his wife was crying nearby
At a distance of about 5 or 6 feet from there he saw Nana Patil and asked him what was the matter
Nana Patil replied that he did not know anything
Vishnu Patil asked Nana Patil to call the doctor
Jaywant Patil a private practitioner reached the house of the deceased and on his advice the deceased was removed to the dispensary
When for two hours Tulashiram did not regain consciousness Dr
Patil at about 1112 PM took him to the hospital at Kolhapur in his own car
Patil at the trial stated that Tanubai said to him and also gave in writing exhibit 26 to the effect that she had no complaint against anybody
The prosecution produced PW 3 Parvatibai PW 9 Krishan Wadkar PW 10 Shankar Patil PW 11 Krishna Sadashiv Patil and PW 12 Nanu Patil all eye witnesses
Except PW 3 Parvatibai all other eye witnesses were de clared hostile
The prosecution case thus hinges on the sole testimony of Parvatibai
Parvatibai has deposed that she saw on the evening of January 30 1972 Shivaji Patil hitting her husband with a stick
Admittedly her mother in law her two sisters in law and Shivaji Patil came present on the spot immediately thereafter
Parvatibai did not disclose the name of the assailant to them or to anybody else
Rather Dr Patil who came to the house little later was told by Tanubai that the family did not suspect anybody
Vishnu Patil stated at the trial that nobody informed him about the accused or any other person who gave injuries to the deceased
The Police Patil in his report dated 3111972 stated that at 1030 AM on that day he went to the house of deceased
The father of the deceased an uncle and a distant relation were present in the house
The Police Patil asked them about the incident
They replied that they had no knowledge about the incident as they were not present in the house at the time of occurrence
The Police Patil further says that while he was present in the house a taxi came from Kolhapur and the 404 mother and wife of Tulashiram deceased got down from the taxi
The Police Patil questioned the ladies as to how Tulashiram was injured
The ladies were not prepared to talk and no information regarding the alleged occurrence was given to him
He made further enquiries from other people but nobody gave him any information regarding the assail ants
On the basis of the Police Patil s report a case was registered at police station Rachanagari wherein it was mentioned that the cause of death of Tulashiram was not known
Head constable BS Patharvat sent a complaint on 1st of February 1972 wherein he stated that he came to know about the incident on the morning of 31st of January 1972 and he went to the house of Tulashiram at about 1011 AM and asked the in mates about the occurrence but nobody gave him any information
He again went to the house of Tulashiram deceased on 1st of February 1972 and recorded the statement of Parvatibai
She stated that when she came to the front door she saw Shivaji Patil running with a stick from near about her husband
She said that the relations between her husband and Vyanku were not good and Shivaji Patil and Nana Patil were friends of Vyanku Sutar
She further stated that Vyanku Sutar Shivaji Patil and Nana Patil made company and assaulted her husband
On the basis of the statement of Parvatibai the head constable sent the complaint for regis tering the case against Vyanku Sutar Shivaji Patil and Nana Patil under sections 30234 IPC though ultimately charge was filed by police only against Shivaji Patil
The question for consideration is as to why was Parvati bai mum from 3011972 to 12
1972 The High Court felt satisfied by saying that she was in a dazed mood
We do not agree with the High Court
Parvatibai s conduct was highly unnatural
A wife who has seen an assailant giving fatal blows with a stick to her husband would name the assailant to all present and to the police at an earliest opportunity
There is nothing in the evidence to justify this highly unnatural and improbable conduct of Parvatibai
Even on 12
1972 the statement of Parvatibai recorded by police head constable is entirely different than what she stated at the trial
The prosecution has thus not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt
We therefore give benefit of doubt to the appellant and accept the appeal
The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 302 IPC
The appellant is on bail and as such his bail bond is cancelled
NPV Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellantswrit petitioners are private importers of edible oils
Under the Import Policy of 1978 79 the Govern ment canalised the import of edible oils through the State Trading Corporation
Some of the private importers who had entered into firm commitments with foreign suppliers and were now being denied permission to import the edible oils filed writ petitions in various High Courts
These writ petitions were allowed and they were granted licences to import the edible oils in order to honour their commit ments
From March 17 1979 the import of edible oils was sub jected to differential rates of customs duty at the hands of private importers and the State Trading Corporation inas much as c oncessional rate of customs duty was levied on the imports by the State Trading Corporation under the order of exemp tion issued under section 252 of the 
The order stated that in view of high international prices of vegetable oils and in order to keep the domestic prices at reasonable levels it was considered necessary to exempt the State Trading Corporation from part of the Customs duty
The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi complaining of the differential treatment accorded between the private importers and the State Trading Corpora tion
Similar writ petitions were filed in this Court di rectly
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the private importers that i there was no basis for the dif ferential duty set out in the exemption orders and no real or substantial nexus between the 357 differentiation made and the object of section 252 ii there was no real or substantial distinction between the private importers and the State Trading Corporation having regard to the object of the statute the nature of customs duty the rationale of section 25 and the professed object of the exemption orders under section 252 iii the State Trading Corporation could not be equated with the Central Government iv assuming that the State Trading Corporation could be equated with the Central Government or that it was acting on behalf of the Central Government once the Government ventured into the commercial field it donned the robes of a trader and it could not therefore claim any special attribute or prefer ence for differentiation v the differentiation proceeded on excessive classification and that resulted in violation of the doctrine of equality enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution vi the concession must relate to the goods and not to the personality of the importer and vii the allegation that the international prices of edible oils were high was inconsistent with the reality of the situation
Dismissing the appeals
special leave petitions and the writ petitions this Court
HELD 1 The power conferred on the Central Government under section 252 of the Act is to be exercised by it in its subjective satisfaction
The exercise of the power is con trolled by the requirement in the sub section that the exemption order must contain a statement stating the circum stances of an exceptional nature under which the special exemption order has been considered necessary
The require ment is intended by the statute to ensure that the satisfac tion of the Central Government concerning the necessity of the order is not reached arbitrarily but flows from material relevant to the object for which the power has been con ferred
361E G 2 The limitations on the jurisdiction of the Court in cases where the satisfaction has been entrusted to executive authority to judge the necessity for passing orders is well defined and has been long accepted
365E F 3 Contracts by private importers concluded before 2 December 1978 were allowed to be worked out after that date without affecting the principle that as from December 1978 the business of importing such oils belonged exclusively to the State Trading Corporation
This is the background in which the questions raised before the Court need to be considered
364E 358 4 It is the Central Government which has to be satis fied as the authority appointed by Parliament under section 252 that it is necessary in the public interest to make the special order of exemption
It has set out the reasons which prompted it to pass the orders
It is not for this Court to sit in judgment on the sufficiency of those rea sons
365D E 5 The reasons set forth in the exemption notifications can constitute a reasonable basis for those notifications
International prices were fluctuating and although they may have shown a perceptible fall there was the apprehension that because of the history of fluctuations there was a possibility of their rising in future
The need to protect the domestic market is always present and therefore encour agement had to be given to the imports effected by the State Trading Corporation by reducing the rate of customs duty levied on them
364F G 6 It is true that the State dons the robes of a trader when it enters the field of commercial activity and ordi narily it can claim no favoured treatment
But there may be clear and good reason for making a departure
Viewed in the background of the reasons for granting a monopoly to the State Trading Corporation acting as an agent or nominee of the Central Government in importing the specified oils it will be evident that policy considerations rendered it necessary to make consummation of that policy effective by imposing a concessional levy on the imports
No such conces sion is called for in the case of private importers who in any event are merely working out contracts entered into by them with foreign sellers before 2 December 1978
365F H STCv
Commercial Tax Officer Vishakapatnam 1964 4 SCR 99 Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs State of Bihar  Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpo ration vs Income Tax Officer   Vidarbha Housing Board vs Income Tax Officer City  Refund Circle Nagpur  L 1
Escorts Ltd   344 State of J  K vs
TN Khosa  792 Mohammad Shujat Ali vs Union of India   470 and In Re The Special Courts Bill 1978  561 2 referred to