Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R.S. Ramanathan, J.
N. Balasubramanian and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Crl. R.C. Nos. 1020 of 2002 and 202 of 2011
Decided On: 12.06.2015
Customs, Act, 1962 – Section 129D – P.C. Act – Sections 7, 13 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120 (b), r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 – Charge Sheet – Respondents filed charge sheet against 9 accused namely, (1) N. Gopalakrishnan, (2) Ballarpur Industries, (3) Yogesh Bakshi, (4) M.N. Narayanan, (5) Smt. T.M. Manorama, (6) N. Balasubramanian, (7) V. Arunachalam, (8) N. Periasamy, (9) Ramesh Kumar. A. 1, A. 5 to A. 9 were working in the Customs House in Chennai during 1993-94. A. 2 is the Company. – A. 3 was the General Manager of that company (2). – A. 4 was the staff of A. 2. – The respondent filed the charge sheet against the aforesaid 9 persons for offences punishable under sections 120 (b), r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and further stated that A. 1 has committed specific offences punishable under section 420 IPC, 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. A. 2, A. 3 and A. 4 have committed the specific offences punishable under section 420 IPC. – A. 5 to A. 8 have committed specific offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and A. 9 has committed specific offences punishable under section 420 IPC, section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. – As stated supra, A. 2, A. 3 and A. 6 and A. 9 filed these petitions. – Held, Court is concerned with the forgery alleged to have been committed by the accused in affixing the seal of the customs at a later point of time to make it appear that the Applications were filed within the period of limitation and that question was left open by the Honble Supreme Court. – Hence, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the Honble Supreme Court upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the Applications were filed within the period of limitation and therefore, seal date 5.3.1993 ought to have been affixed on the date on which it was filed. – According to me, these aspects were properly considered by the lower Court while dismissing the applications for discharge. – Court do not find any material to interfere with the finding of the lower Court. – A plea that fair trial is the essence of criminal jurisprudence and the accused were denied fair trial and cited various judgments. – Having regard to the pendency of these cases, at the instance of the accused, it cannot be stated that trial was delayed by the prosecution. – Hence, there is no question of prejudice caused to the accused by reason of delay and according to court, the accused are to be blamed for the delay and therefore, the prosecution cannot be quashed on that ground. – Criminal O.P. No. 25095 of 2007 was filed to quash the order of proclamation passed against the petitioner therein. – Court do not want to go into the legality of the order of proclamation which is challenged in this petition. – Suffice it to say that proclamation order is set aside by directing the petitioner to file an affidavit of undertaking to appear before the Court on all hearings. – Criminal O.P. Disposed of.
R.S. Ramanathan, J.
1. These revisions and petitions are filed either to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 1 of 1998 on the file of the XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, and also charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 27 of 2001, which was split charge from C.C. No. 1 of 1998 and also to allow the discharge petition filed by A. 6, A. 2 and A. 7.
Criminal R.C. No. 1020 of 2002 was filed by A. 6 in C.C. No. 1 of 1998 challenging the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 207 of 1999 in C.C. No. 1 of 1998 whereby the discharge application filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed.
Criminal R.C. No. 202 of 2011 was filed by A. 2 challenging the dismissal of the discharge application filed by the revision petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 711 of 2009 in C.C. No. 1 of 1998 on the file of the XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.
Criminal O.P. No. 20249 of 2003 was filed by A. 3 to quash the charge in C.C. No. 27 of 2001 on the file of the IX Additional Principal Sessions Judge for CBI Cases.
Criminal O.P. No. 26880 of 2009 was filed by A. 9 in C.C. No. 1 of 1998 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1 of 1998.
Criminal O.P. No. 25095 of 2007 was filed by A. 1 in C.C. No. 27 of 2001 to quash the order of proclamation dated 27.05.2003 and consequential proceedings thereto.
As the facts relating to all these revisions and original petitions are one and the same and the revision petitioners and the petitioners filed these revisions and original petitions to quash the charge sheet or to discharge them, all of them were heard together and common order is passed.
2. The respondents filed charge sheet against 9 accused namely, (1) N. Gopalakrishnan, (2) Ballarpur Industries, (3) Yogesh Bakshi, (4) M.N. Narayanan, (5) Smt. T.M. Manorama, (6) N. Balasubramanian, (7) V. Arunachalam, (8) N. Periasamy, (9) Ramesh Kumar. A. 1, A. 5 to A. 9 were working in the Customs House in Chennai during 1993-94. A. 2 is the Company. A. 3 was the General Manager of that company (2). A. 4 was the staff of A. 2. The respondent filed the charge sheet against the aforesaid 9 persons for offences punishable under sections 120 (b), r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and further stated that A. 1 has committed specific offences punishable under section 420 IPC, 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. A. 2, A. 3 and A. 4 have committed the specific offences punishable under section 420 IPC. A. 5 to A. 8 have committed specific offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and A. 9 has committed specific offences punishable under section 420 IPC, section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As stated supra, A. 2, A. 3 and A. 6 and A. 9 filed these petitions.
3. The gravamen of the charge insofar as these accused are concerned is as follows:
A. 2 Ms. Ballarpur Industries Limited, hereinafter referred to as "BILT' is a glass making unit. They imported goods, namely, machinery and other items through Madras Customs House during 1992 and claimed imported goods as accessories eligible for concessional rate of duties and that was disputed by the customs and a dispute arose with regard to importation of goods under certain Bill of Entries. Finally, "BILT" came forward to pay the prescribed rate of duty and cleared the goods after paying the higher rate of duty for the goods imported under the Bills of Entry No. 026274 dated 31.07.1992, 030346 dated 4.9.1992, 030661 dated 16.9.1992, 030675 dated 8.9.1992, 034745 dated 4.9.1992. After clearing the items imported during the month of October, 1992, "BILT" filed refund claim in respect of 5 imports made under 5 Bill of Entries as stated above. All the 5 refund claims were signed by the third accused, who was the General Manager of "BILT" purportedly on 4.3.1993. All the refund claims uniformly
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
