9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order that is said to have been passed by Mr.Madhavan, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD, filed by petitioner rejected - Held that: - the Public Information Officer has not denied the existence of the document, but has only stated that it is not traceable. Be that as it may, for maintaining a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the petitioner to give entire description of the document for the Court to issue a subpoena. In the absence of those particulars, by merely relying upon the reply given by the Public Information Officer, which is indeed vague, one cannot come to the conclusion that the said Madhavan had passed an order as contended by the petitioners/accused. Therefore, the trial Court was perfectly right in di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady cross examined them during pre-charge proceedings. Thus, the prosecution completed their examination of the witnesses and the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, for which they simply denied the allegations. 3. Thereafter, the accused filed an application to examine one Mr.Madhavan, retired Deputy Commissioner of Customs as D.W.1. When examined, it is seen that Mr.Madhavan had stated that, he does not know the facts of the case without looking into the official records. At that juncture, the petitioners/accused filed an application in C.M.P.No.809 of 2015 u/s 91 Cr.P.C. calling for the proceedings that is said to have been passed by Mr.Madhavan - D.W.1, when he was in service. It may be relevant to state here that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Right to Information Act, to the Public Information Officer, Central Excise Department, Coimbatore calling for the order passed in connection with Shipping Bill nos.198, 199 and 200 dated 15.07.2003 that was referred to in the show cause notice dated 03.02.2004 issued by the Department. The Central Public Information Officers of Customs, by letter dated 27.04.2015 provided the petitioners with the details, including the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 14.12.2004. Not satisfied with it, Suresh [A1] who is one of the petitioners, has given another application dated 01.06.2015, requesting for a copy of the order that is said to have been passed by Mr.Madhavan, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD, in respect of Shipping Bill no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
