Delhi District Court
M/S Krishna Fabrics (P) Ltd vs Deputy Cci & E on 30 April, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI. Case ID No. 02402R03 8 3 5 5 2 0 0 6 Criminal Revision No. 143 / 0 6 Date of Filing 18 st July 2006 Date of Decision 30 th April 2007 In the Matter of: 1. M/s Krishna Fabrics (P) Ltd. 20, Improveme nt Trust Market, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziaba d, UP. 2. Sh. Hanuman t Singh S /o Late Sh. Pratap Singh R/o 6, Panchs h eel Marg, New Delhi. ...... Petitioners VERSUS Deputy CCI & E, Office of JT CCI & E, CLA, New Delhi. ..... Respondent And in the Matter of: CBI Versus Krishna Fabrics & Ors. RC No. 13 / E / 8 5 U/ s 5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. O R D E R
1. The Revisionists have challenged the order dated 19.04.20 0 6 passed by Ld. MM by which it was ordered to frame charge in Page 1 of 7 case RC No. RC No. 13 / E / 8 5 U/ s 5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 tilted as CBI Vs. Krishn a Fabrics & Ors. The said order has been challenged on many ground s like the impugned order is against the law and facts; there is no prima facie case made out against the Petitioner; the complaint is otherwise not maintain a ble as the depart m e n t is relying upon the docu me n t s / s t a t e m e n t s seized / r e corded by the CBI; Ld. Court has erroneo u sly discarded the judgme nt cited on behalf of Petitioner and no permission was taken from the State Governme n t for investigating the offence which was committed in the State of UP /M u m b ai; beca u s e FIR was registered by the CBI but charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.PC was not filed; on the contrary relying upon the material collected by the CBI, the depart me n t has filed the complaint U/ s 200 Cr.PC; apart from the evidence collected by the CBI, no cogent material was filed by the depart me n t alongwith complaint and no FIR can be lodged in view of the provision of said Act and the said impugned order is against the said principal of law.
2. Notice was issued to the depart m e n t and a detailed affidavit dated 09.04.20 0 7 was also filed on behalf of the depart m e n t . Argument s heard. My considered view is as under: Page 2 of 7
3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that on the same facts, depart me n t had also initiated proceedings for levying penalty against the present Petitioners and the matter was adjudicated and penalty of rupees twenty lacs was imposed. The said order was challenged before the Appellate Committee and the said appeal was allowed vide order dated 13.02.200 7.
4. As per Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, under the similar circu m s t a n c e s , another complaint was filed by the depart me n t against another set accused titled as Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports Vs. Jasbir Singh Manchan d a & Ors. before the Special J udicial Magistrate, Amabala and one of the accused had approac he d Hon'be Punjab & Haryan a High Court by filing a petition U/ s 482 Cr.PC for quas hi ng the proceedings in which Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
" After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition stand s dispose d of with the directions to the learned C. J. M., Ambala that he shall not feel any hesitation in dismis sing the complaint filed by the Department if he comes to the conclusion that the said complaint was filed solely on the basis of the findings given by the C.B.I. who investigated the matter. There is is force in the argument raised by the learned Sr. Counsel that C.B.I. Agency in this case did not get prior Page 3 of 7 permission of the State Government for investigating the offences which have been allegedly committed either in the State of Haryana or at Bombay. I also see merit in the submis sion of the learned Sr. Counsel when he submitted before this Court that the C.B.I. has no jurisdiction to investigate those offences which have been committed outside the Union Territory unles s these are specific directions either from the High Court or from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Petitioner will be permitted to take all the pleas which have been taken in the present petition before the learned Magistrate in order to convince him that the complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of law or that it could not proceed against him.''
5. After rema n d of the matter, Ld. Trial Court was pleased to reach to the conclusion as detailed in para 18 of its judgme nt dated 24.01.200 0, which is as under:
"If the evidence collected by C.B.I. is ignored, there remains no cogent material to connect the accused with the alleged crime. There is thus no escape from the conclusion that the complaint filed by the Department rests solely on the findings given by C.B.I. who had investigated the matter. That being the position, this court has no option but to dismis s the complaint filed by the department in terms of the Page 4 of 7 directions issued by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 03.10.97 reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment.''
6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that similar is the position here becau s e the list of docume n t s and list of witnesses in the complaint filed by the depart me n t is exact copy of the list of docu me n t s and list of witnesse s in the RC registered by the C.B.I.
7. The next ground argued by Ld. Couns el for the Petitioner is that in the matter of Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal & Others (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 139 , it was held that :
"In view of the findings recorded by us, the learned Magistrate has to proceed with the trial of the accuse d respondent s. Shri Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel has, however, submitted that the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 has since been repealed and in the departmental proceedings taken under the aforesaid Act, the Central Government has passe d orders in favour of the repondent s and, therefore, their trial before the criminal court at this stage would be an exercise in futility. He has placed before us copies of the orders pass e d by the Additional Director General of Foreign Page 5 of 7 Trade on 16 81993 and also by the Appellate Committee Cell, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India on 13 31997 by which the appeals preferred by the responde nts were allowed by the Appellate Committee and the accuse d respondent s were exonerated. Having regard to the material existing against the responde nts and the reasons and findings given in the aforesaid orders, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by the trial of the accuse d respondent s in the criminal court at this stage. The proceedings of the criminal cases instituted against the accuse d responde nts on the basis of the complaints filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports are, therefore, quashe d.''
8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has further argued that in the present case also in the depart m e n t al proceedings, the Petitioner has been exonerated, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act , 1947 stand s repealed, so the trial before the criminal court would be a futile exercise. Ld. Could for the Depart me n t has argued that ratio of judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the said judgment of Hon'ble High Court was passed in the facts and circu m s t a n c e s of that particular case. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
Page 6 of 7
9. I am in respect disagreeme n t with the Counsel for the Depart me n t . Judgm e n t of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rosha n Lal & Others (Sapra) clearly states that in a case where in depart me n t al proceedings, order has been passed in the favour of Responde n t s and Acts stand s repealed, trial before criminal court would be an exercise in futility. I am also agree with the other ground argued by Ld. Couns el for the Petitioner that there is no other material on record except the material collected by the CBI , but CBI had not come forward to file challan U/ s 173 Cr.PC. Hence, there is no ground to contin ue these proceedings against the present Petitioners.
10. In view of this, the revision petition is allowed. and impugne d order framing charge against the accused persons is hereby quas h e d. A copy of this order be placed in the Trial Court Record and the same be sent back. Thereafter revision file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 th DAY OF APRIL, 20 0 7 .
(TALWANT SINGH) Additional Sessions Ju dge Karkardoom a Courts Delhi 110032.
Page 7 of 7