It is not open to the court to strain the language of a sta.tutc in order to read a causus omissus and the court cannot Jill up a lacuna. Also, the court cannot construe the section with reference to the corre9P0nding English Section and English decisions because, the Indian and English sections ar-e not in pari materia. Under s. 167(81) the material ingredients F constituting an offence are; (i) a p·erson must have a knowleilge that there is a prohibition or restriction against doing any of the enumerated acts 'vith respect to goods imported or exported contrary to the restriction or prohibition imposed against their import or export, and (ii) he n1ust have acted with an intention to evade such a restriction or prohibition. That is., the two elements of n1ens rea, namely, kno,vledge and intention must be established, because, knowledge of an offence cannot be equated with an intention to commit the offence. The crux of the offence is the G import of goods with the requisite intent contrary to the prohibition. The importer who smuggle• the goods is certainly guilty under the section because he imports them in derogation of the prohibition or res- triction. Also, any person who deals with the goods in the context of the import in any of the connected ways set out in the section, with the requisite knowledge and intention would equally be guilty of the offence, ' because, the enumerated dealings with the goods prohibited or restricted H may be necessary to complete the import vis-a-vis the 'importer, even though they cover a field beyond the point of import as normally understood, that ls, when the goods cross the customs barrier. But the intention to contravene the prohibition cannot be imputed to subsequent dealers in
