2017 (7) TMI 969 - HC - Indian Laws

Charges against the petitioner who is charged for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 471, 482 IPC, 13(1) (a) (b) r/w. 9(B) (e), 10(A), (bb) (c ) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Section 132 and 135 of Customs Act, 1962 and substantiate offences thereof - Held that - On careful perusal of the final report filed by the respondent and the statement recorded during the investigation and also documents collected would reveal that there is a prima facie case against this petitioner and there are incriminating materials against this petitioner to proceed further. But whereas the trial court as well as first appellate court have conducted mini trial except the fact that they have not examined the witnesses and discussed elaborately and passed the orders. On the other hand fact as to whether he is a qualified person to say about the materials and whether he has knowledge about the chemicals can be decided only after the trial and not at this stage. One thing is clear that having gone in details of discussions and giving reason for allowing the discharge petition in CMP.No.276/2011 by the trial court and also further dismissal order of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge while considering the revision, it is relevant to mention that this court and Apex court time and again reiterated that at this stage of framing of charge, it is enough to see the final report and documents annexed with as to whether a prima facie case is made out and an incriminating material available to proceed against the accused and further the Hon ble Apex Court has time and again has held that at the time of framing of charge roving enquiry need not be conducted and also the defence taken by the accused need not be looked into. At this stage, the Court has to see from the oral and documentary evidence collected during the investigation reveal as to whether any incriminating materials are available against the accused to proceed further. Admittedly in this case, on reading of a final report and also oral and documentary evidence annexed with the final report, this court finds that there is a prima facie case against the accused and also there are incriminating materials against this petitioner/4th accused to proceed further.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and importation of spurious drugs.
3. Role and responsibility of the petitioner as a Customs House Agent (CHA).
4. Evaluation of evidence and prima facie case against the petitioner.
5. Non-impleading of Customs Officials as accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai:
The petitioner challenged the order of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, which set aside the discharge order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The IV Additional Sessions Judge directed to frame charges against the petitioner for offenses under various sections of the IPC, Drugs and Cosmetic Act, and Customs Act. The High Court upheld the decision of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, confirming that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner.

2. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Importation of Spurious Drugs:
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with A1 to A3, conspired to import spurious and sub-standard drugs into India using forged documents and without a proper license, thereby cheating the Customs Department and the public. The petitioner was accused of submitting false declarations and using counterfeit certificates to import 300 kgs of Cefotaxime Sodium USP from China, which was later disowned by the purported manufacturer.

3. Role and Responsibility of the Petitioner as a Customs House Agent (CHA):
The petitioner argued that his role was limited to acting as a customs house agent and that he had no personal knowledge about the manufacturer in China. He contended that he was merely an intermediary and not responsible for any criminal acts by A2 and A3. However, the court noted that the petitioner, as a CHA, was bound by Regulation 13 of the Customs House Agent's Licensing Regulation and was required to ensure compliance with the Act and regulations. The petitioner’s duty included verifying the details of the goods and the legitimacy of the documents submitted.

4. Evaluation of Evidence and Prima Facie Case Against the Petitioner:
The court reviewed the charge sheet, witness statements, and documents collected during the investigation. It found that there was sufficient incriminating material to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, it is sufficient to determine if there is a prima facie case based on the evidence presented, without conducting a detailed inquiry into the defense's claims.

5. Non-impleading of Customs Officials as Accused:
The petitioner argued that the customs officials should also be held responsible for any negligence. The court, however, stated that the customs officials could be dealt with departmentally for any lapses but found no material to implicate them as co-conspirators. The court held that the petitioner’s contention regarding non-impleading of customs officials was not sustainable under the law.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision case filed by the petitioner, confirming the order passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. The court found that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner, and the trial should proceed based on the incriminating materials available. The petitioner's arguments regarding his limited role and the responsibility of customs officials were not accepted. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.