9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er being M/s. Golden Exports Corporation, Bangalore. On suspicion, they were inspected on 12-4-1993 and found to contain sandalwood logs/billets, peacock feathers. This lead the Customs Authorities to scrutinise other containers as well. 10 containers belonging to the exports viz., Golden Export Corporation, Bangalore and M/s. A.P. Miner Exports, Guntur similarly contained contraband goods. But in the original shipping bills, the products were described as Mica Powder. On 7-4-1993 the residential premises of A.2 was searched and there was no seizure. On 21-4-1993 the petitioner was arrested and was released on bail. On 18-5-1993 during the course of arguments of A.l's bail application, the investigation by the customs officials was attacked seriously and therefore, this court directed the investigation to be taken up by the central Bureau of investigation. Consequently, CBI registered a case in RC5(S)/93 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 132 and 135 of Customs Act. After investigation, complaint has been filed in C.C. No. 78 of 1998, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as A.2. As already stated, A. 8, K. Rajaguru who was Clearing Agent, who filed the shipping bill wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illets and the peacock feathers from two containers at the Harbour. As regards the phone call made by him to A. 5's residence when the search was going on, and when the petitioner was questioned, he has stated that he heard in the trade circle that A. 5 has got certain problems with the Customs Authorities and out of curiosity, he made phone call and this would show no significance could be attributed to the petitioner for his phoning to Kannan's residence. In both the statements, he has spoken only about his dealing with musical parts made out of red sander woods. There is no seizure of any red sander wood from the two containers, nor allegation that red sanders wood is sought to be smuggled in the container. 4. Among the statements recorded from various persons firstly by the Customs and later by CBI, it could be seen that only A.1, Kalimullah, A.4, Chandrasekaran mentioned the name of the petitioner and others do not even mention his name. In the statement of Kalimullah, A.1, while answering the question No. 4, he simply stated that Kannan and Sethuraman are friends of the petitioner in business. As regards the statement of A.4, chandrasekaran, the statement shows that he speak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the mater and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial". 7. In a case of mere suspicion, an accused can be discharged. But when the suspicion is grave, naturally a prima facie case is made out and in such circumstances an accused cannot be discharged. Tonnes of suspicion are nothing in contrast with an ounce of proof. But the truth could be ascertained only by letting in evidence. But at this stage, the petitioner is entitled to show whether there is any material against him to make out a prima facie case against him. 8. As far as the two statements dated 7-4-1993 and 21-4-1993 are concerned, they are totally exculpatory and do not implicate the petitioner in any way with the case. Sambandam, who is the approver has given confession before the learned Magistrate wherein he has attributed the entire blame on A. 4, Chandrasekaran, A.5, Kannan, A.6, Gnanamani and A7, Srinivasan. He has never mentioned the name of the petitioner anywhere. 9. The circumstances that are relied on by the learned Special Public Prosecutor are the Phone call made by the petitioner to A.5 when search was going on in A.5's residence and statement of A.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the petitioner as far as the offence is concerned. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he was dealing with Sandalwood under the licence issued by the Forest department. On 2.12.1992 much earlier to the occurrence in question, the petitioner is said to have sold the entire sandalwood purchased by him in a Government auction to one Md. Gani of M/s. G.G. Enterprises. The said Gani and two others were prosecuted for unlawful possession of sandalwood in C.C. No. 344/95 before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee. In the said case, the accused Gani and two others were acquitted. On the application filed by this petitioner that he has sold the property to A.1 and the material objects concerned in that case belongs to Jarine international Ltd., belonged to the petitioner herein the Judicial Magistrate held that the petitioner is entitled for return of M.Os. 1 to 4 sandalwood. Thus, the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed an order for return of the sandalwood billets to the petitioner s firm. Against the said judgment, no appeal has been filed by the State and the said judgement has become final. 14. In the counter statement filed by the respondent before the Addl. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis for implicating this petitioner in this case. There is no material to entertain any suspicion, leave alone grave suspicion against this accused. No materials are available to make out a prima facie case against this petitioner.
18. On a similar circumstance, A.8, K. Rajaguru, the authorised clearing Agent of M/s. Syndicate Shipping Corporation who is said to have allowed A.6 to forge his signatures in the shipping bills for monetary consideration was already discharged by this Court by order dated 18-1-2002 on the ground that there is no evidence. As far as this accused is concerned, he is in a better footing than A.8. Therefore, I see substance in the contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, and consequently, it has to be held that the proceedings as against this petitioner are liable to be dropped, as he is entitled for discharge. Accordingly the petitioner, A.2, is discharged, impugned order is set aside and the revision is allowed. Consequently, connected Crl. M.P is closed.
19. The Trial Court is directed to go on with the proceedings as against the other accused and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
