SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Gau) 1533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.
Rajesh Kumar Jalan – Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Crl. Petition No. 430 of 2017, IA (Crl.) No. 361 of 2017
Decided On : 23-06-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.P. Baruah.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(2) – Quashment of Order – By the petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner prayed for quashing order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) as well as the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam in GR Case corresponding to CID P.S. Case and by the connected interlocutory application the petitioner has prayed for his release from the aforementioned case – Both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order – Held, If Court go by the word of “purposive legislation” in the given circumstances, it will be evident that while passing the order by the GM, he was not in a position to take cognizance as the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was added – Similarly the learned Special Judge was not in a position to take cognizance as the I.O. continued further investigation of the case and additional charge-sheet was not submitted as regards the co-accused. – Having regard to the offence which is of serious nature and secure of lots of documents and other facts related to discovery of certain facts from the e-documents, etc., and the magnitude of offence, it is incumbent on the part of the I.O. to go in for detail investigation. – It cannot be lost sight of that the matter herein relates to economic offence and thereby causing loss of huge government, exchequer, one can assume that investigation is to be carried out to unearth the real miscreants involved at the helm of affairs. – It includes high level officials of the excise department and having regard to all above the learned court has to allow adequate time to unearth such huge scam to book the real culprits involved in the case. – Petitions Rejected

ORDER :

1. By the petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner prayed for quashing order dated 1.3.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) as well as the order dated 26.4.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam in GR Case No. 127651/2015 corresponding to CID P.S. Case No. 54/2015 and by the connected interlocutory application the petitioner has prayed for his release from the aforementioned case. Both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 20.11.2015 the Commissioner of Excise, Assam lodged an FIR alleging, inter alia, that on receipt of certain information through SMS from an unidentified person on 12.5.2015 regarding alleged anomalies in M/s. B.G. Bonded Warehosue, located at Lokhra, Guwahati ordered the Excise Intelligence Bureau (EIB) officials to visit the said licensed premises and to verify the Excise documents and records. The said team seized the excise documents and records for verification as per rules. It was further alleged that subsequently on 26.5.2015 the informant received an unsigned letter from an unidentified reporter on the same matter. The informant directed the Joint Commissioner of Excise (I/C), Assam, EIB to submit report on the Bonded Warehouse at the earliest. It was further alleged that pursuant to the publication of the news in the electronic as well as print media against the said Bonded Warehouse, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted under the Joint Commissioner of Excise (I/C), Excise Intelligence Bureau, vide order dated 17.7.2015. Further it was alleged that the SIT conducted an enquiry and submitted its report on 19th September, 2015 where in the SIT recommended that the licensee of the said Bonded Warehouse was criminally culpable as the proprietor allegedly forged the signature and seal of the Excise Officials of Kokrajhar Treasury Officer, Kokrajhar and the State Bank of India, Kokrajhar and thereby defalcated an amount of Rs. 19.86 crores as excise revenue apart from sales tax. It was further alleged that the SIT further recommended that the case be handed over to the CID or Assam Police, since the licensee was not co-operating with the investigation and, therefore, her custodial interrogation may be required to find out her criminal culpability and to find out the involvement of any other persons.

3. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, CID PS Case No. 54/15 under section 120B/409/468/ 471, IPC was registered and the CID PS case No. 4/2016 which was also registered on the basis of a similar complaint lodged by the tax department has been amalgamated with instant case with due permission of the learned CJM. Thereafter the accused petitioner was arrested in connection with the case on 4.12.2016 and produced before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), on the following grounds:

(i) The accused Rajesh Jalan with the help of other co-accused prepared fake document, forge seal of different government offices, inserted forged signature on those papers thereby misappropriated and amount of Rs. 43,73,32,93,410.60 approx which is deemed to the Government as excise duty and VAT.

(ii) The accused Mr. Jalan though is not the licensee of BG Bonded Warehouse, however, he operated all functions of the said BG Bonded Warehouse by establishing himself as the licensee of the said bonded house and thereby mislead the administration.

(iii) The accused along with other accomplice prepared forged documents relating to purchasing of IMFL (Indian Made Foreign Liquor) documents relating to deposit of Government, revenue, accepted all the facilities provided by different companies under lifting criteria whereas he is having no authority to accept it.

(iv) Though the actual licensee of BG Bonded Warehouse, Mrs. Bonti Gogoi Pegu, however, she prepared a management agreement and executed power of attorney with one Mrinal Goswami in 2013 contrary to the excise manual, even then the accused nowhere made the power of attorney-h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top