Technical breach in goods movement held venial, with no confiscation or penalty justified on the facts.

Movement of notified goods under a proper invoice and contemporaneous accounts was treated as lawful where the authorisation letter substantially contained the required particulars. The failure to give prior intimation before shifting the goods was regarded as a technical lapse, and the non-compliance with voucher formalities was held to be procedural rather than substantive. On the evidence that the goods were being taken for a lawful purpose, the alleged infractions were found to be technical and venial, so confiscation and penalty were not justified and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the movement and transfer of notified goods, despite the alleged absence of strict voucher particulars and prior intimation, amounted to a contravention warranting confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The goods were purchased under a proper invoice and contemporaneous records showed that they were entered in the society's accounts and covered by an authorisation letter issued on the date of seizure. The authorisation substantially reflected the required particulars, though it did not strictly comply with every formal requirement under the voucher provisions. The absence of intimation before shifting the goods from Belgaum was treated as a technical lapse only. On the evidence, the Court found that the goods were being taken for a lawful purpose and that the breaches were purely procedural in nature.

Conclusion: The alleged infractions were held to be technical and venial, and did not justify confiscation or penalty. The appeal was dismissed.

---