2022 (7) TMI 777 - HC - Customs

Seeking anticipatory bail - misuse of Duty Exemption Pass Book (DEPB) and Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme by using forged Shipping Bills - Section 120B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. - HELD THAT - It is evident that the present F.I.R. has been lodged for cheating, using forged documents as genuine, forging documents and gaining undue monetary benefits thereby causing loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of about Rs. 17 Crores. The matter was investigated thoroughly and charge sheet has been submitted, on which cognizance has been taken by the concerned court. The applicant in spite of knowing of filing of charge sheet and order of cognizance and summoning and non-bailable warrants issued against him, is avoiding appearance before the trial court. The matter falls within the category of economic offence. In the present matter, charge sheet has been submitted on which cognizance has been taken and the applicant has been summoned to face trial. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving charges under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. (RC 3(E)/2006 EOW-I DLI).

Analysis:
The case revolves around the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving allegations of misuse of Duty Exemption Pass Book (DEPB) and Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme through forged Shipping Bills. The FIR was lodged based on information from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding the misuse of the scheme. The applicant's firm was accused of diverting duty-free import material, leading to the lodging of the FIR and subsequent investigation. The charge sheet was filed against the applicant and a co-accused, while four other co-accused persons were not charge-sheeted. The trial court took cognizance of the charge sheet and summoned the applicant for trial.

The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, cooperated during the investigation, and was not arrested, indicating his willingness to cooperate in the trial. The defense contended that the FIR was illegal as the matter pertained to customs duty evasion, suggesting that a complaint should have been filed instead. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case emphasizing that arrest post charge sheet filing is unnecessary, which was deemed applicable to the applicant's case.

On the contrary, the C.B.I. opposed anticipatory bail, alleging that the applicant's firm used forged Shipping Bills to claim Excise Duty benefits. Investigations revealed discrepancies in export claims, with no physical exports taking place despite claims made. The C.B.I. argued that the applicant submitted false documents, leading to a substantial loss to the State Exchequer. The defense of the C.B.I. emphasized the seriousness of the offenses, the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the applicant who remained absconding, and the pending challenge to the summoning order.

The court considered the gravity of the offenses, the substantial monetary loss to the State Exchequer, and the applicant's evasion of court appearances despite non-bailable warrants. It distinguished the present case from the referenced Supreme Court case, noting the absence of a requirement for the applicant's prior arrest before charge sheet filing and cognizance. Given the economic nature of the offenses and the repeated non-bailable warrants issued against the applicant, the court deemed it unsuitable to grant anticipatory bail, ultimately rejecting the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.