9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de – Decided in favour of Appellant. - Criminal Appeal No. 2602 of 2014 and Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3134 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 17-12-2014 - Dipak Misra and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ. Ms. Vibha Dutt Makhija, Sr. Advocate, S/Shri T.A. Khan, Ms. Charul Sarin, Arivind Kumar Sharma, B.V. Balram Das, Advocates with him, for the Appellant. Shri B.A. Khan, Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Madhurima Mridul, Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Mithu Jain, B. Karunakar, B. Shajjmon, Vikash Singh, Advocates with him, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Leave granted. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22-8-2011 passed by the High Court of Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 106 of 2009 whereby it set aside the order of the Special Court dated 19-12-2008 dismissing the application for discharge preferred by the Respondents herein. 2. On 8-2-2007 RC-1/E/2007-CBI/EOW/CHENNAI was registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POC Act for short) and Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the allegations that accused Nos. 1-3 named therein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the allegations as aforesaid and investigation was conducted by CBI which later filed charge sheet against said five accused on 28-4-2008. The allegations against respondent Nos. 1 2 were : A-4 Arun Kumar while preparing GR Forms is supposed to assess the value in Indian rupees for the value mentioned in US dollars by the Exporter. While preparing GR Forms, A-1 Manish Kumar Jain and A-2 R.V. Shanmugam prepared two such documents one showing correct weight in kg and value in US dollars and the other having inflated weight in kg and value in US dollars. A-1 Manish Kumar Jain and A-2 R.V. Shanmugam have put two before the weight inflating by 20,000 kgs and one before the value in US dollars inflating it by 1 lakh dollars. But A-4 Arun Kumar while endorsing it in the reverse of the form assessed and calculated the value of export in rupees and wrote the same in his own handwriting under his signature. But in the present market value mentioned in the GR Forms by the Exporter, a digit five has been added before the value in rupees, thus inflating the value by ₹ 50 lakhs. This value, of course could not be the correct value if calculate at the rate of ₹ 43.55 per US ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication by its order dated 19-12-2008. The respondents being aggrieved preferred revision under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr. P.C. before the High Court. During the pendency of said revision the special Court framed following charges against the accused : Charge No. Accused Offences under section/s I A-1 to A-5 120-B r/w 511 IPC, 468, 471 and 201 IPC/Section 15 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 132 and 136 of the Custom Act. II A-1 to A-2 468 IPC III A-1 to A-2 468 r/w 471 IPC IV A-1 to A-3 511 r/w 420 IPC V A-1 to A-2 201 IPC VI A-4 to A-5 201 IPC VII A-1 to A-3 132 of the Customs Act VIII A-4 to A-5 136 of the Customs Act IX A-4 to A-5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se for interference by this Court was made out. 7. We have gone through two sets of documents which were filed along with an additional affidavit. By way of sample, Shipping Bill No. 000810 is for the quantity of 3568 Kgs with value at ₹ 7,88,830 whereas the corresponding Exchange Control Declaration (GR) mentions the quantity as 23568 Kgs i.e. to say digit 2 stands added and the value shown is ₹ 57,88,830 i.e. to say digit 5 stands added. In the process, the value was inflated which would in turn increase the amount of duty drawback multifold. The documents placed on record which are part of the charge sheet, certainly raise grave suspicion against the respondents. 8. The law on the point is succinctly stated by this Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI - (2010) 9 SCC 368 wherein after referring to Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal - (1909) 3 SCC 4 and Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra - (2002) 2 SCC 135 this Court observed in para 19 thus : It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 9. In our considered view, the material on record discloses grave suspicion against the respondents and the Special Court was right in framing charges against the respondents. We must also observe that the High Court was not justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
