Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 1389
High Court Of Delhi
A. K. SIKRI
RAM NIWAS TYAGI - Appellant
Versus
SHAM SUNDER - Respondents
Bail Application 1768 Of 2006
Decided On : 07/13/2007
Anil Soni Jain, I.U.KHAN, K.K.SUD, Mukta Gupta, Neeraj
The main legal point established in the judgment is that detailed scrutiny of the contentions should occur at the appropriate stage before the trial court. The court dismisses the petitions for quashing and bail applications, stating that the allegations prima facie constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Evasion of Excise Duty - Prevention of Corruption Act - [Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act] - The judgment discusses the evasion of excise duty and the connivance of the accused with the distillery, leading to wrongful loss to the state. The court analyzes the allegations against the accused and dismisses the petitions for quashing the FIR and bail applications, stating that the matter should be considered at the appropriate stage before the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleges evasion of excise duty in connivance with an Excise Inspector, leading to wrongful loss to the state. The accused seek quashing of the FIR and anticipatory bail, claiming discrepancies in the prosecution's story and coerced testimonies.
Issues: The issues revolve around the evasion of excise duty, coerced testimonies, and the role of the accused in connivance with the distillery. The court emphasizes that detailed scrutiny should occur at the appropriate stage before the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that detailed scrutiny of the contentions should occur at the appropriate stage before the trial court. It dismisses the petitions for quashing and bail applications, stating that the allegations prima facie constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Final Decision: The court dismisses the petitions for quashing and bail applications, stating that the matter should be considered at the appropriate stage before the trial court.
( 1 ) TWO petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and two bail applications seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the code of Criminal Procedure arise out of the same FIR No. 28 of 2006. The matter is at investigation stage though investigation is virtually complete and qua some of the accused persons, charge-sheet has also been filed during the pendency of these proceedings. Two of the accused persons, namely, Ram Niwas tyagi and Sham Sunder want these proceedings to be quashed and they have also filed applications for anticipatory bail. Before coming to the pleas raised in support of their aforesaid petitions for quashing and grant of bail, it would be necessary to understand the case of the prosecution as per the FIR.
( 2 ) THE facts alleged by the prosecution, in this behalf, are as under: `it is submitted that source information was received by Sh. Sukhbir Singh inspr. , Anti Corruption Branch, GNCT of Delhi on 25. 03. 2006, that the evasion of excise duty was being done by the attorney of a liquor bond at 56, Rama Road, moti Nagar, New Delhi in connivance with the officials of Excise Deptt. , GNCT of delh. The surveillance teams were mounted on 26. 03. 2006 at the warehouse of 5 distilleries situated at 56 Rama Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi and for following the tempos taking liquor from warehouse to liquor shops. The surveillance teams observed that at about 11. 40 A. M. one truck bearing No. MP-16a-9705 entered at 56 Rama Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi and cartons of liquor were unloaded from this truck by laborers. This truck left the premises at about 12. 52 PM. At about 1 PM, another truck bearing No. MP-16h-0021 entered the above premises and cartons of liquor were unloaded from it in the said premises. This truck left at about 2. 05 PM from there. It was also observed that 8 Nos. four wheeler tempos also entered the said premises between 9. 45 AM to 3. 30 PM and after loading the cartons of liquor, the tempos left the premises. The movement regarding entry/exit and loading/unloading of trucks/tempos were videographed from a safe distance secretly in the presence of punch witness, Sh. Suresh chand, Craft Instructor, ITI Pus, Delh. Thus, it is obvious that two truckloads of liquor had come to liquor warehouse 56 Rama Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi and liquor had been sent out in 8 tempos to various shops in Delhi on 26. 03. 2006. One of the tempo No. DL-1l C-9559 loaded with liquor left 56 Rama Road, New Delhi at 10. 43 AM and delivered 6 cartons liquor of Glasgow Distilleries to liquor shop of Delhi Tourism and transportation Development Corporation, East Park Road, Delhi and 45 cartons of the said distilleries to the shop of M/s Kamaljeet Singh, holder L-52, liquor, license, at IX/1529 Main Market, Gandhi Market, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, as observed by one of the surveillance teams, in the presence of the punch witness. On verification of records of the distilleries godown at 56 Rama Road, Moti nagar, Delhi on 27-03-2006 in presence of Sh. K. K. Bhalla, Distt. Excise officer, it was found that on 26-03-2006 only one truck No. MP-16a-9705 was entered in the stock register of M/s Glassgow Distilleries Ltd. having given the delivery of 610 cartons of liquor, whereas, there was no entry of 609 cartons of liquor delivered by truck No. MP 16-H-0021. Moreover only 6 tempos were shown to have entered the godown and transported the liquor on T. P. on 26. 03. 2006 from the warehouse. Thus unloading of one truckload of liquor in the bond and loading of liquor into two tempos from the bond to various vends has not been recorded in the record of the bond. When the stock of this liquor shop at IX/1529 Main Market Gandhi Nagar, Delhi was checked on 27. 03. 2006 in presence of Sh. K. K. Bhalla, Distt. Excise Officer, the delivery of liquor given by tempo No. DL-1l C-9559 was not found entered in stock register. It was found that the T. P. vide which the liquor was sent from the bond on
