The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be futile due to the snapped conspiracy link and the relief of other accused.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO.I), FAC, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 made in Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2019 in EOCC.No.5 of 2004 dated 19.03.2019 in dismissing the petitioner by the petitioners herein for discharge.)

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/A6 to A8 against the dismissal of their discharge petition filed under section 239 Cr.P.C vide order dated 19.03.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2019 in E.O.C.C.No.5 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I) FAC, Egmore.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i) According to the prosecution, there was a conspiracy among Al, A3, A7, A8, A9 and A11 with A12 to A17 during 1995-1997 at Chennai, Ranipet, Tuticorin and other places in Tamilnadu to cheat the Government of India, by way of exporting substandard capital goods/machinery to Singapore by falsely declaring the item exported as Capital Goods, by over invoicing the value of the same by submitting fabricated documents to Chennai Customs authorities, suppressing goods/machinery imported back to India through Tuticorin Port under 100% Export Oriented Unit (100% EOU) scheme for manufacture of Iron Oxide of electronic grade without paying custom duty by falsely declaring the capital goods as imported from USA instead of furnishing the real description and nature of machinery to Tuticorin Customs by further over invoicing the said capital goods and also evaded customs duty and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Government of India to the tune of Rs.31.10 crores approximately. Who filed the complaint. Therefore, the Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi filed a complaint before the respondent. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent registered a case in RC No.6(E)2000/CBI/EOW/Chennai. The respondent, after completion of investigation filed charge sheet before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I) FAC, Chennai, who took cognizance in E.O.C.C.No.5 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(ii) After filing charge sheet, the petitioners/Accused filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.2001/2015 before the lower Court, which was dismissed by the lower Court on 03.10.2018 on a wrong premise that the case was instituted otherwise than the police report. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred Crl.R.C.No.1190/2018, in which this Court by order dated 09.11.2008 set aside the order of the lower Court, giving liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh discharge petition before the trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2019 before the Additional (E.0.I)/FAC, Egmore, Chennai. The learned Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence produced before it, dismissed the said petition vide order dated 19.03.2019. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have filed the present criminal revision.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of the learned Judge is liable to be set aside only on account of non application of mind and that the judgments referred by the learned Judge are not relevant to the facts of this case. The learned Judge in his order merely extracted some portion of the Sanction for prosecution under the Customs Act given by the Commissioner of Customs and by enlisting list of witnesses and documents. The petitioners are importers of the machinery. The petitioners had formed 100% EOU which exempts it from payment of any custom’s duty, hence the question of any loss having been caused does not arise. The petitioners bonafidely believed the representations of the first accused (deceased) and fell victim to the fraud committed by him. On the