9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 672 - HC - CustomsLegality of the second FIR - clubbing of investigations under two FIR - forex remittance has been fraudulently send abroad by submission of forged documents - HELD THAT - The forged Bill of Entries utilized by the accused in RC 11(E)/2022 are distinct and separate from those used in RC 04(E)/ 2017. The accused had forged different sets of Bills of Entry and submitted them to the banks in RC 04(E)/2017 and separate set of Bills of Entries in RC 11(E)/2022. Thus, the forged Bill of Entry in both the FIRs are not the same. In the case of T.T. Antoy Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. 2001 (7) TMI 1322 - SUPREME COURT , it was held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. In the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 2013 (4) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT , it was held that there can be no second FIR and consequently no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence of the instance giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. The second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of same transaction is impermissible and it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 218 deals with separate charges for distinct offences. Section 219 provides that three offences of the same kind can be clubbed in one trial committed within one year. Section 202 speaks of trial for more than one offence if it is the same transaction. In the said case it cannot be said that the defalcation is same transaction as the transaction are in different treasuries for different years, different amounts, different allotment letters, supply orders and suppliers. There are different sets of accused in different cases with respect to defalcation. There may be a conspiracy in general one and a separate one. There may be larger conspiracy and smaller conspiracy which may develop in successive stages involving different accused persons. It was held that the defalcation were made in various years by combination of different accused persons. Thus, there can be different trials. The offences are not the same offence. The investigation of the FIR of 2022 is in progress. It cannot be said that the FIR pertains to the same transaction or same cause of action which is investigated under the FIR of 2017. Both are distinct in nature. It is not required to quash the FIR and/or club them together. The Petitioner was not available for investigation in the FIR investigated by CBI - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the second FIR. 2. Request to club the investigations of two FIRs. Summary: 1. Challenge to the second FIR: The Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the second FIR (No. RC0682022E0011) registered with EOB, Mumbai, for offences u/s 120-B r/w Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. The Petitioner argued that the second FIR was unnecessary and mala fide since the transactions were already under investigation in the first FIR (No. RC0682017E0004). The Petitioner contended that multiple FIRs for the same offence are not permissible by law, as it would result in multiple criminal proceedings for the same offence, constituting an abuse of process and violating Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. 2. Request to club the investigations of two FIRs: The Petitioner requested that the investigation under the second FIR be clubbed with the first FIR, arguing that both FIRs pertain to the same transactions and offences. The prosecution, however, maintained that the investigations are distinct, involving different transactions, modus operandi, and accused individuals. The prosecution emphasized that the second FIR pertains to separate instances of illegal forex remittance and submission of forged import documents to Bank of Maharashtra, Nariman Point Branch, which are not connected to the banks covered in the first FIR. Court's Findings: The Court found that the cause of action in the second FIR is distinct from the first FIR, with no nexus of commonality between the two independent and distinct offences. The Court noted that the second FIR involves different transactions, accused individuals, and entities, and thus, cannot be considered the same transaction as the first FIR. The Court referred to various precedents, including T.T. Antoy Vs. State of Kerala, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, and State of Jharkhand Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav, to support the position that multiple FIRs for the same offence are impermissible unless they pertain to distinct transactions or occurrences. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the second FIR is distinct and separate from the first FIR and does not arise out of the same transaction. Therefore, the request to quash the second FIR or club the investigations was rejected. The Petitioner's writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim relief, which prevented the Petitioner's arrest, was not extended. ORDER: Writ Petition Nos. 2937 of 2023 and 495 of 2023 are dismissed and disposed of. The prayer for extension of interim relief is rejected.
|
