SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Baccarose Perfumes And Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3216 of 2024
Decided On : 06-09-2024
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 – Section 13(1)(d) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B read with Section 420 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 61 read with Section 318] – Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Section 3(2) read with Section 4A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Non-declaration of MRP on goods by Appellant-Company – Rejection of discharge petition – Mere registration of FIR cannot be interpreted to mean that it constitutes initiation of such proceedings – Registration of FIR necessitates investigation by a competent officer – Investigation and taking of cognizance operate in parallel channels – Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), returned a finding that Appellant-Company was not required to pay CVD on the basis of MRP, but as per invoice value – This is in consonance with submission of Appellant-Company – Appellant-Company had successfully claimed immunity from prosecution under CA 1962, CE Act 1944, and IPC 1860 – As very basis of allegation of offence against Appellant-Company was found to be non-existent, it would have amounted to misuse rather abuse of process of law – Sanction for prosecution for offences under PCA 1988, stood declined – Application for discharge, as moved by Appellant-Company, ought to have been accepted by Special Judge – Proceedings against Appellant-Company quashed. (Paras 19, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is assailing Order dated 15.09.2023, wherein High Court of Gujarat dismissed Criminal Revision Application No. 783 of 2017 moved under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against rejection of discharge application moved by Appellant- Company. Said application was dismissed by Special Judge (CBI).
Findings of Court:
Proceedings against Appellant-Company are quashed by setting aside the Impugned Order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in CRA No. 783 of 2017 and the Order dated 01.06.2010 passed by the Special Judge in RC6(A)/2005.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. The Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant-Company”) is assailing the Order dated 15.09.2023, wherein the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the Criminal Revision Application No. 783 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CRA No. 783 of 2017”) moved under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC 1973”) against the rejection of discharge application moved by the Appellant- Company. The said application was dismissed by the learned Special Judge (CBI) at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “Special Judge”) vide Order dated 19.07.2017.
2. It is alleged by the Central Bureau of Investigation, being Respondent No. 01 (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent- Agency”), that the Appellant-Company had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri Yogendra Garg, Joint Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Kandla (hereinafter referred to as “KASEZ”), and Shri V.N. Jahagirdar, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, KASEZ, between the period from March 2001 to August 2004. It is alleged that the latter officials perverted their official positions and allowed the Appellant-Company to clear its goods into the Indian Market on payment of Countervailing Duty (hereinafter referred to as “CVD”) on the invoice value of the concerned goods, rather than the payment of the CVD on the Maximum Retail Price (hereinafter referred to as “MRP”) of the said goods, thereby causing a wrongful gain to themselves and a corresponding wrongful loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of INR 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores only).
3. Before pursuing the aftermath of the allegations by the Respondent-Agency, it is crucial to delve into the backdrop in which the allegations arose against the Appellant-Company.
4. The Appellant-Company claims to be a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which is engaged in manufacturing and exporting of cosmetics and toilet preparations and having one of its units in KASEZ. As per the Appellant-Company, its products get cleared from the KASEZ Unit into the Domestic Tariff Area (hereinafter referred to as “DTA”) in consonance with the necessary permissions granted to it by the appropriate authority. It is its case that it had effected the following three kinds of clearances from its KASEZ Unit into the DTA, being (a) Clearances of goods weighing or containing less than 20 gram or 20 millilitre, (b) products containing alcohol, and (c) other goods in “Wholesale Packs”.
5. From August 2004 onwards, Officers of the Kandla Customs (hereinafter referred as “Revenue Authorities”) moved against the Appellant-Company, alleging that they had escaped payment of CVD on the aforementioned clearances on account of non-disclosure of MRP as per the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “SWM Act 1976”) as they had declared only the invoice value of the said goods. This was a violation of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “CT Act 1975”) read with Section 4A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as “CE Act 1944”), and on the said ground, goods being cleared by the Appellant-Company into the DTA were intercepted. The Revenue Authorities issued Show Cause Notices dated 03.11.2004, 10.11.2004, and 10.02.2005 (along with Corrigendum dated 11.03.2005) under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “CA 1962”), under Section 11A of the CE Act 1944, and under Section 124 of CA 1962 respectively.
6. Thereafter, pursuant to the said allegation based on source information to Respondent- Agency, First Information Report bearing number RC-6(A)/2005-GNR under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC 1860”) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “PCA 1998”) w
General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles v. CBI and Another
Jamuna Singh and Others v. Bhadai Shah
Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others v. V. Narayana Reddy and Others
H.N. Rishbud v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra
Investigation and taking of cognizance operate in parallel channels.
The critical legal principle established is that a prima facie case must be evident for proceeding with criminal charges, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence to ascertain guilt beyond....
The court confirmed the legitimacy of pursuing parallel civil and criminal proceedings, emphasizing that procedural lapses in prior adjudications do not invalidate ongoing criminal prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can quash criminal proceedings if the prosecution lacks prima facie evidence, the complaint is barred by limitation, and the prosecu....
The main legal point established is the interpretation of 'at any previous stage of the case' under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. and its relevance to the pre-cognizance stage of the complaint.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 and the liability of an overseas entity for participating in a conspiracy to evade customs ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.