2012 (3) TMI 70 - HC - Customs

Petitions preferred u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the Complaint against petitioners and summoning order accusation u/s 132, 135 of the Customs Act - allegations against the petitioners are of assisting in availing duty drawback fraudulently by preparing belated Bills of Lading - non-mentioning of date of taking charge of the goods on the Bills of Lading prepared - manipulating the export date on the documents and getting them negotiated in the Bank Held that - The department has recorded statements of many witnesses and a search was conducted at the official premises of the accused where various incriminating documents and false seals of various enterprises were found. The material on record prima facie shows involvement of the petitioners in the offence alleged against them. Denying the chance of a trial to the prosecution will be against the spirit of law Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of complaint and summoning order under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, accused no. 3, 4, and 6, were alleged to have assisted in fraudulently availing duty drawback by manipulating Bills of Lading in a customs case. The accusations included preparing belated Bills of Lading and facilitating the negotiation of documents for remittances and claiming drawback deceitfully. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of duty drawback and imposed penalties on the accused persons and the shipping lines involved.

2. The petitioners challenged the summoning order, arguing that there were no specific allegations against them in the complaint, and the necessary ingredients of knowledge and intention were not established. They contended that the complaint should be quashed as their roles were not clearly defined, and the companies they worked for were not named as parties.

3. The Department defended the complaint, stating that incriminating material and witness statements supported the allegations against the petitioners. The search conducted at the accused's premises revealed false documents and seals, indicating their involvement in the fraudulent activities. The Department argued that the petitioners were actively engaged in the offenses alleged.

4. The Court, after considering the arguments, emphasized the wide powers under Section 482 of the Code and the need for caution in exercising such powers. It highlighted that the inherent power should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecutions and that quashing should only occur if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or lacks evidence of the alleged offense.

5. The Court rejected the petitioners' contentions, stating that the complaint clearly outlined their roles and allegations against them. It noted that at the initial stage, the focus should be on whether there is a prima facie indication of the accused's involvement in the alleged offenses. The Court emphasized that denying a trial to the prosecution at this stage would go against the spirit of the law.

6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petitions, concluding that there was enough material to proceed against the petitioners, and quashing the complaint and summoning order at that stage would not serve the interests of justice. The petitioners were directed to face trial and present their case before the trial court.