9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. - CRL.RC.No.1173 of 2016, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer M/s.Zheijang Yongning Pharmaceuticals Factory, China. The fact is proved by LW5, LW6 and LD12. During the mandatory clearances, the Assistant Drug Controller, Customs House, Chennai referred the matter to the manufacturer for confirmation. M/s.Zheijang Yongning Pharmaceuticals Factory, China disowned the product imported by A1 company. 5. After laying charge sheet, it was taken on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, in in C.C.No.5271/2010 after furnishing copies to A1 to A3 and the present petitioner, the matter was pending before the trial court and this petitioner had filed the petition in Crl.MP.No.276/2011 to discharge him from the C.C.No.5271/2010. 6. After the filing of counter by the respondent and also on hearing both sides, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and discharged him from C.C.No.5271/2010. 7. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the respondent/ prosecution had filed revision petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and in turn, Sessions Judge had taken on file Crl.RC.No.46/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cker, etc, are not arrayed as accused or cited as witnesses and there is no monetary benefit to the petitioner and nothing is recovered from the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner had carried out his responsibility only according to the law and the trial court had appreciated the above mentioned facts and correctly has come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner and discharged the petitioner from the criminal case. 11. Learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in his order dated 04.07.2016 in Crl.RC.No.46 of 2012 has not considered the facts and legal position of the case properly but has simply allowed the revision without giving any valid reason and set aside the order passed by the trial court. Further the provisions referred to by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, and also the citations referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that there is no quarrel with the propositions laid down in the referred cases but at the same time, the facts and circumstances of the cases are not applicable to the present case. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai while passing orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the investigation and documents collected during the investigation and annexure with the chargesheet and the order passed by the trial Judge in Crl.MP.No.276/2011 dated 17.02.2012 and also the order passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.RC.No.46/2012 dated 04.07.2016 and also the grounds of revision raised in this Criminal Revision Petition and the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 15. On perusal of the records, it is admitted by both parties that A1 to A3 had imported certain materials for which the revision petitioner had acted as Customs Housing Agent for the disputed period. According to the prosecution, the accused A1 to A3 conspired with the present petitioner had imported spurious drugs and declared the goods as Organic Chemicals . 16. According to the petitioner, there is no evidence against the petitioner either with regard to conspiracy or with regard to other offences as alleged by the prosecution and the petitioner is only an intermediator between the customs officials and importers. The petitioner is not responsible for any criminal act done by A2 and A3 unless it is proved by the evidence. The petitioner had no knowledge ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit by deleting the manufacturers name and imported the same vide Bill of Entry No.886446 dated 23.07.2009. The investigation reveals that the petitioner had filed a declaration form along with the Bill of Entry by showing the product Organic Chemical . The Commercial Invoice Packing list was issued by M/s. Zhejiang Chemicals Import and Export Corporation, China and Certificate of Analysis was issued by the purported manufacturer M/s. Wangchangtongtai Pharmaceutical (Zibo)Limited. Further, the records would disclose that A1 Company represented by A2 and A3 had been issued with import license for importing Roxithromycin EP/IP from the manufacturer M/s.Zhejiang Zhenyuan Pharmaceuticals Company Limited, China and other licence for importing Cefotaxime Sodium USP from the manufacturer M/s.Zhejiang Yongning Pharmaceuticals Factory, China. Further, the petitioner has processed papers for import from M/s. Zhejiang Yongning Pharmaceuticals Factory, China for which A1 did not obtain any license. 20. The petitioner cannot plead ignorance of the details of the goods because in the bill of entries, the substance imported was suffixed with the letter USP which is to refer that substance imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
