Bangalore District Court
Smt. Girija Muthangi vs No.4 Is That The Evidence Of Pw1 ... on 13 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XLVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-48)
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF DECEMBER 2019
PRESENT
Sri. T.N. INAVALLY, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru
SPL.CC.NO.111/2000
BETWEEN
State by Central Bureau of Investigation,
Chennai. ...... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Prosecutor Sri. Chenthil Kumar)
AND
1. M/s. Southend Technology,
Represented by the Proprietor,
P. Shivshankar,
No.65, Mallikarjuna Temple Street,
DVG Road Cross, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore - 560 004.
2. P. Shivshankar,
Proprietor of M/s. Southend Technology,
No.65, Mallikarjuna Temple Street,
DVG Road Cross, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore - 560 004.
R/o No.2246, 23rd Cross,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Near Sridevi Nursing Home,
Bangalore - 560 070.
3. K. Venkatesh Prasad,
UDC/CABS/DRDO,
Banglaore.(Under Suspension)R/o No.1333,
29th Main, First Phase, J.P. Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 078.
4. Commander K. Harikumar,
S/o. Late Krishna Iyer,Then Logistic Officer,
CABS/DRDO/Bangalore.
(Retired from Service)
R/o. No.61, 18th 'A' Main,
7th Cross, Jai Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 011 .... ACCUSED PERSONS
2 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
(The accused No.2 is dead and hence, this case against accused No.1
and 2 is dismissed as abated)
(By Sri. DSJ, Advocate for accused No.3)
(By Sri. KSJ, Advocate for accused No.4)
JUDGMENT
This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the Complainant/ Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Bengaluru ('the CBI' for short) against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sec.120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ('the Act' for short) and Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act.
2. The brief facts of the case alleged against the accused persons are that the accused No.1 was company represented by its Proprietor, the accused No.2. The accused No.3 was working as UDC and the accused No.4 was working as Logistic Officer in Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS) in Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), Bengaluru during the year 1994-95. The accused No.1 to 4 hatched a criminal conspiracy between the month of April 1994 and 1995, to import goods by the accused No.1 company in the name of CABS, DRDO, Bengaluru in order to avail duty exemption benefit on imported goods with intent to dispose the goods through accused No.2 to the sister concern of DRDO in India. In pursuance of such conspiracy, the accused No.3 in collusion with the accused No.2 and 4 issued a letter of indent dated 10.02.1994 in favour of accused No.1 company purported to have been issued by CABS, DRDO, 3 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Bengaluru to procure the materials and stated that the final order would be placed on the basis of Tender Purchase Committee minutes of CABS, DRCO, Bengaluru. Subsequently, the accused No.3 and 4 with dishonest intention fraudulently issued 13 fake purchase orders of different dates.
3. It is also the case of the prosecution that in pursuance of such forged purchase orders in the name of the accused No.1 company, a forged and fabricated procurement contract agreement worth to the tune of Rs.45 crore was prepared by the accused No.3, who had dishonestly taken away some agreements from the office records of CABS and those agreements subsequently used by the accused No.3 as specimen for the above said fake agreement. The specimen agreement containing endorsement in the handwriting of accused No.3 was the official address of accused No.1 company. A computer floppy containing the details of fake procurement contract agreement dated 17.10.1994 and a printer which was used for taking the print out of such fake agreement were seized from the possession of the accused No.3. On the basis of such documents the accused No.1 company fraudulently imported various items from Singapore Aerospace Company Limited, Singapore and the imports were in the name of CABS, DRDO, Bengaluru. Out of such imports two consignments were cleared through Madras/ Chennai Customs, three were from Cochin Customs and ten were from Air Customs, Bengaluru. In all such import transactions the accused No.1 company dishonestly claimed duty 4 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 exemption by submitting fake duty exemption certificate issued by the accused No.4, who was not competent to issue such duty exemption entitlement certificate. On the basis of such duty exemption certificate dishonestly issued by accused No.4 the Customs department exempted duty worth approximately of Rs.1.21 crore.
4. Further, in pursuance of such fake duty exemption entitlement certificate total 15 import consignments were cleared. After the import of those consignments they were kept in the godown of the accused No.2 in connivance with the accused No.3 and 4. The accused No.1 company was facing serious financial crunch and to overcome such financial crunch the accused No.1 company and its owner, the accused No.2 in conspiracy with accused No.3 and 4 dishonestly prepared a letter stating that one more project value of Rs.48 crore was pending in Headquarters, New Delhi for approval of the competent Authority. Clubbing the two amounts of Rs.45 Crores and Rs.48 Crores, a post dated cheque for Rs.93 Crores was fraudulently and dishonestly fabricated and the said cheque was presented to State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Main Branch, Bengaluru through the accused No.2 and his associates for encashment. The Bank officials considering the huge amount involved in the said cheque contacted CABS, DRDO, Bengaluru, which was purported to have issued the said cheque bearing No.090800 dated 12.08.1995. On receiving negative response from the DRDO for having issued the said cheque, the Bank officials lodged complaint with Cubbon Park Police, Bengaluru and the case 5 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 was registered in their Cr.No.239/1995 and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against 7 more accused persons including the accused No.2 and 3 and consequently, the case was registered against the accused No.2 and 3 and others as per CC.No.18927/1996 on the file of the Court of VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged in the said case. Hence, the accused No.1 represented by its owner, the accused No.2 and the accused No.3 and 4 have committed the offences as alleged in the charge sheet.
5. The CBI registered case against the accused No.1 company and against unknown private persons and unknown public servants on the basis of complaint given by Ms. Girija Muthangi, the then Deputy Commissioner of Customs (P&V), Officer of the Commissioner of Customs, Madras as per their Cr.No.RC 4/E/96 on 09.09.1996 for the offences punishable under Sec.120-B r/w Sec.420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and other substantive offences thereof and under Sec.132 & 135 of Customs Act, 1962 and took up investigation of the case.
6. After completion of investigation the CBI filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sec.120-B r/w Sec.420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of the Act and Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act. 6 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Accordingly, this case has been registered against the accused No.1 to
4. After filing of the charge sheet, the accused persons have appeared through the learned counsel and got enlarged on bail.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the accused No.3 and the accused No.4 and also the learned Prosecutor and on considering the relevant materials on record, this Court has framed charge against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sec.120-B r/w Sec.420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of the Act and Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act. The accused No.1 to 4 have pleaded not guilty of the offences charged against them and thereby they have claimed to be tried of the said offences.
8. In support of the case of the prosecution, 58 witnesses are examined as PW1 to PW58. The prosecution has produced documents at Exs.P.1 to P.294. The prosecution has also produced two material objects as per MO1 and MO2. During the trial of the case the accused No.2 has died. He is owner of the accused No.1 company. Hence, this case against the accused No.1 and 2 is dismissed as abated.
9. After closing of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court has recorded the statements of accused No.3 and 4 under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.3 and 4 have denied the incriminating materials forthcoming against them in the evidence of 7 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 prosecution witnesses in their statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. But the accused No.3 and 4 have not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf. However, the accused No.3 and 4 have produced documents and got marked those documents at Exs.D.1 to D.13 on behalf of defence side.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for accused No.3 and the accused No.4. The learned Prosecutor and the learned counsel for both accused No.3 and 4 have filed their respective arguments in writing. The learned Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for accused No.3 and 4 have also furnished the concerned citations in support of their arguments. Perused the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record and also the principles of law laid down in the decisions relied on by both the parties. Now the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are that:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being company, the accused No.2 being the proprietor of the accused No.1 company, the accused No.3 being the then UDC and the accused No.4 being the Logistic Officer in Centre for Airborne Systems in CABS, in DRDO, Bengaluru during the year 1994-1995 entered into criminal conspiracy to do the illegal act to cheat the Customs Department at Bengaluru, Chennai and Cochin and thereby the accused No.3 and 4 have committed offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Sec.120-B of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy and in collusion with the accused No.2 falsely submitted Duty Exemption Certificate for evading customs import duty to the tune of Rs.1.21 crore to import 13 consignments falsely declaring that such goods were exempted from 8 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 customs duty and cheated the customs department and also CABS, DRDO and thereby the accused No.3 and 4 have committed offences punishable under Sec.420 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and in collusion with the accused No.2 with dishonest intention issued the letter of indent dated 10.02.1994 in favour of accused No.1 company purported to have been issued by CABS in DRDO for supply of materials valued at Rs.45 crore and thereby issued 13 false purchase orders dishonestly and thereby the accused No.3 and 4 have committed offences of forgery punishable under Sec.467 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy, based on the 13 forged purchase orders in the name of the accused No.1 company fabricated forged procurement contract agreement for Rs.45 crore by removing specimen copy of agreement from the office of CABS, DRDO and used it as specimen for forging procurement contract and thereby the accused No.3 and 4 have committed forgery for the purpose of cheating punishable under Sec.468 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy, fraudulently and dishonestly used the forged duty exemption certificates as genuine for importing consignments at Bengaluru, Chennai and Cochin customs knowing and having knowledge to believe that those documents as forged documents and used those forged documents as genuine and thereby the accused No.3 and 4 have committed forgery for the purpose of cheating punishable under Sec.471 of IPC?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy dishonestly created false procurement contract agreement and issued false duty exemption certificate falsely making declaration in the bills of entry and other documents knowingly or having reason to believe that such declaration and documents are false and on the basis of such false documents fraudulently evaded to pay customs duty to the tune of Rs.1.21 crores and thereby the accused No.3 and 4 have committed offences punishable under Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act?
7. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 as UDC and the accused 9 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 No.4 as Logistics Officer in CABS, DRDO, Bengaluru being public servants at the relevant time by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage by using their official position as public servants issued forged procurement contract agreement and falsely issued DEE certificate in favour of accused No.1 company for exempting him from payment of customs import duty to the tune of Rs.1.21 crore and caused pecuniary advantage to the accused No.1 company and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Customs department in the import of concerned materials and thereby the accused No.3 and 4 have committed offences punishable under Sec.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act?
8. What order?
11. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and on considering oral and documentary evidence on record and also the principles of law put forth by both the parties, my findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: In the affirmative Point No.3: In the affirmative Point No.4: In the affirmative Point No.5: In the affirmative Point No.6: In the affirmative Point No.7: In the affirmative Point No.8: As per final order, For the following:
REASONS
12. Points No.1 to 7: All these points are taken up for consideration together for avoiding repetition of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding points of law.
10 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
13. It is undisputed fact that the accused No.1 was the company represented by its proprietor, the accused No.2. It is not in dispute that th accused No.3 is the then UDC and the accused No.4 is the then Logistics Officer of CABS in DRDO, Bengaluru during the relevant period. There is absolutely no dispute that the CABS, DRDO used the import of goods for its purpose through the accused No.1 company. The case alleged against the accused persons is that accused No.2 to 4 hatched criminal conspiracy and got created the concerned forged documents and used such forged documents to cheat the Customs department for evading to pay customs duty to the tune of Rs.1.21 crore and thereby caused loss to the Customs department and corresponding gain to the accused No.1 company.
14. It is well settled principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case alleged against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. It is true that in the case on hand the proof of the offences charged against the accused No.3 and 4 rests on circumstantial evidence. However, such circumstances are based on documentary evidence to the larger extent. Hence, in the present case this Court has to consider the oral evidence forthcoming on record along with the concerned documents to come to the conclusion whether or not the prosecution has proved the offences charged against the accused No.3 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubt. 11 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
15. As the accused No.2 has died during the pendency of the case, this case against him is already dismissed as abated. The accused No.1 is the company represented by its proprietor, the accused No.2. Hence, at this stage the question of prosecution proving the case against the accused No.1 and 2 does not arise on the facts of the case. Therefore, in the circumstances, the oral and documentary evidence available on record are considered to come to the conclusion whether the prosecution is able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the offences charged against the accused No.1 and 2 in the case.
16. The prosecution was set into motion against the accused persons on the complaint of Smt. Girija Muthangi, the then Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Personal and Vigilance). However, she has not been examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, CW1 N. Ramakrishnan, the then Additional Commissioner (Personal and Vigilance) of Customs House, Chennai at the relevant period, has been examined as PW1. The PW1 has given evidence before this Court on 16.07.2002.
17. In the evidence in chief examination itself the PW1 has deposed that the complainant Smt. Girija Muthangi settled at USA since she submitted voluntary retirement and therefore, he being her successor has given evidence regarding the complaint. The signature of Smt. Girija Muthangi in the complaint is identified by PW1, as he has deposed that he is acquainted with the signature of Smt. Girija 12 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Muthangi. The signature of Smt. Girija Muthangi, in the complaint is marked at Ex.P.1(a) in the evidence of PW1. Unfortunately, only the signature is marked as Ex.P.1(a).
18. It is the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination that Smt. Girija Muthangi, the then Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Personal and Vigilance) lodged complaint on the basis of Audit report received by the Appraising Department of Customs. He had gone through the said Audit Report and contents of the Audit Report are contents of the complaint besides other proceedings initiated by the Appraising Department of Customs. As per the evidence of PW1, the Audit objection was that the benefit of Customs Exemption Notification bearing No.155/94 dated 13.07.1994 was wrongly given to goods imported for Civil Aircraft. The said Notification was applicable only in respect of the goods imported for defence use. The said Notification is produced by the prosecution and got marked at Ex.P.2 in the evidence of PW1. It is true that there is observation of this Court in the deposition of PW1 that the said Notification is incomplete and subject objection of the learned counsel for accused persons that such objection is to be met by the prosecution, it is got marked as Ex.P.2.
19. It is also forthcoming in the evidence in chief examination of PW1 that based on the Audit objection, the demand notice was issued by the Customs Department to DRDO demanding payment of difference duty and the said demand notice is marked at Ex.P.3. The difference 13 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 customs duty as per the Ex.P.3 is Rs.6.70 lakh. M/s. Jeena & Co., Chennai was the Customs House Agent ('CHA' for short) for DRDO and the importer DRDO issued reply to the demand notice at Ex.P.3. The said reply is got marked at Ex.P.4. In the reply at Ex.P.4 the DRDO denied to have imported such items in violation of the Notification at Ex.P.2. As pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, in the notice at Ex.P.3, the arrears of Customs Duty of Rs.6,55,180/- was claimed and to the said notice the DRDO issued reply as per Ex.P.4, wherein it is clearly stated that on scrutiny of their records it was noticed that no items were imported by their centre at any time as stated in the notice. Further, it is mentioned in the reply at Ex.P.4 that for enabling DRDO to verify the correctness, the Asst. Commissioner of Customs House, Madras was requested to send copies of all the relevant papers.
20. Further, the prosecution has got marked the note sheets prepared by the complainant Smt. Girija Muthangi as per Ex.P.5 in the evidence of PW1. The complaint, in which there is signature of Smt. Girija Muthangi as per Ex.P.1(a), is marked at Ex.P.6 in the evidence of PW1. The original bill of entry dated 13.03.1996, copy of telex, copy of the letter dated 21.03.1996 addressed to DRDO by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Fax message given by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs to expedite the matter, letter dated 17.04.1996 of the Additional Director of DRDO addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and certificate issued by DRDO are produced by the prosecution and got marked at Exs.P.7 to P.13 in the 14 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 evidence in chief examination of PW1. The duplicate bill of entry along with its enclosures such as declaration, original invoice, bill of lading, letter dated 30.03.1995 and declaration form to Customs are got marked at Exs.P.14 to P.19 respectively in the evidence of PW1. Further, the PW1 has identified the signature of accused No.4 in the declaration form at Ex.P.19 and hence, the signature of accused No.4 in Ex.P.19 is marked at Ex.P.19(a).
21. As submitted by the learned counsel for accused No.3 and the learned counsel for accused No.4, the prosecution has not chosen to examine the complainant Smt. Girija Muthangi to prove the contents of complaint at Ex.P.6. However, it is not in dispute that the PW1 is successor in office of the complainant Smt. Girija Muthangi, the then Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Personal and Vigilance). It is also not in dispute that the complaint at Ex.P.6 is based on the Audit objection and other concerned documents. Hence, the complainant averments at Ex.P.6 are based on the contents of the concerned documents and they are not from the personal knowledge of the complainant Smt. Girija Muthangi.
22. It is true that the learned counsel for accused No.4 has argued that the evidence of PW1 regarding the complaint at Ex.P.6 cannot be considered as PW1 is not the complainant. As discussed herein above, it is true that the prosecution has failed to examine the complainant Smt. Girija Muthangi. The learned counsel for accused 15 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 No.4 has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portions in the evidence in cross-examination of PW1 in paras 15, 17, 18, 27 and 29 which read as hereunder:
"....... earlier to 1994 I have not worked with Smt. Girija Muthangi in the Customs Department".
"I never interacted in respect of the Customs Exemption with anybody or with DRDO. I have not sent any Notes to CBI in respect of this customs Exemption Bill".
"I have given evidence on the basis of the documents that have been marked which were shown by the IO during investigation and also shown to me during my Evidence in this case. I have no personal knowledge but I depose only on the basis of the documents"
"I do not know A4 as we never met together. I am not acquainted with the signature of A4 Harikumar".
"...... I am now aware under what circumstances the exemption of Customs Duty was given on the imported goods i.e. Civil Aircraft parts under Ex.P.7".
On the basis of the above referred evidence of PW1, the submission of the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that the deposition of PW1 is hearsay in nature and there is no evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to show as to why the complainant was not examined though she is still alive. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that the evidence of PW1 regarding the complaint at Ex.P.6 is inadmissible.
23. In support of this argument, the learned counsel for accused No.4 has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 2011 SC 760 (Kallayan Kumar Gogoi V/s. Ashukosh and another) in which referring to Sec.3 and 60 of Evidence Act 16 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 it is held that:
"Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the person, whose statement is relied upon, into court for his examination in the regular way, in order that many possible sources of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be brought to light and exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross-examination. The phrase "hearsay evidence" is not used in the Evidence Act because it is inaccurate and vague. It is a fundamental rule of evidence under the Indian Law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible."
The counsel for accused No.4 has also relied on another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2003 SC 3039 (S.R. Ramaraj V/s. Special Court, Bombay), wherein referring to Sec.6 of Evidence Act, it is held that:
"Evidence of Officer of Bank who had no personal knowledge of transactions in question, deposing on basis of material on record, his evidence can not be from his knowledge and necessarily has to be hearsay, shutting out that part of evidence is not proper."
There is absolutely no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down in the above referred decision regarding hearsay evidence. It is true that hearsay evidence has no evidentiary value.
24. As per the facts of the case of the first decision referred herein above, the case is regarding the complaint in respect of the violation of election under Representatives of the People Act. The second decision referred herein above is regarding the offence under Contempt of Courts Act in respect of false verification of statement of facts of the pleadings and it is regarding the civil case. Hence, in the said decision it is held that the officer of Bank had no personal knowledge of the transactions in question and he was deposing on the 17 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 basis of materials on record. His evidence cannot be from his knowledge and necessarily has to be hearsay. But in the case on hand, the PW1 has deposed regarding the complaint at Ex.P.6 and the said complaint is based on the materials forthcoming from the concerned documents. Therefore, the complaint at Ex.P.6 cannot be discarded on the ground that the evidence of PW1 is hearsay evidence.
25. Further, in the case on hand, the case alleged against the accused No.3 and 4 along with other accused persons is based on the documentary evidence to the larger extent. Moreover, as discussed herein above, the contents of the complaint at Ex.P.6 are based on the Audit objection and other concerned documents. Hence, even if the complainant Smt. Girija Muthangi is not examined, it cannot be a ground to say that the evidence of PW1 is hearsay in nature. Therefore, mere fact that the complainant Smt. Girija Muthangi is not examined by the prosecution cannot be a ground to discard the contents of the complainant at Ex.P.6 in its entirety.
26. Now it is relevant to consider the evidence of the concerned Investigation Officers. As pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, the CW58 Muralidharan is the then Inspector of Police, CBI at the relevant time. The CW58 has been examined as PW53. In the evidence in chief examination the PW53 has deposed that when he joined CBI one Mr. Kamaraja was the SP of CBI and he was still there till PW53 repatriated. Hence, the evidence of PW53 in chief examination is that he is 18 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the said Kamaraja, as he worked with him for 1½ years. Hence, the PW53 has identified the FIR, which was registered on the basis of the complaint at Ex.P.6. The said FIR is marked at Ex.P.245 and the signature of Mr. Kamaraja, the then SP, CBI in Ex.P.245 is marked at Ex.P.245(a). The PW53 is also deposed that after registering of the case the further investigation was transferred to him by Mr. Kamaraja.
27. It is the evidence of PW53 that in the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW4 Devanathan, PW5 G. Perumal and PW18 Suresh. The PW53 has also deposed that he examined other witnesses, who are not been cited as witnesses in the charge sheet. Moreover, the evidence of PW53 is that in the course of investigation on 15.07.1997 he made application to the concerned Magistrate and obtained search warrant and searched the office premises of M/s. South End Technology, the accused No.1 company and also the residence of its Proprietor, the accused No.2. On 17.07.1997 he conducted search of the residential premises of accused No.1. In the course of such proceedings he seized totally 11 documents from the house of accused No.2 as per the search list at Ex.P.246. At the time of such search the accused No.2 was present. The signature of PW53 and the accused No.2 in Ex.P.246 are marked at Exs.P.246(a) and P.246(b) respectively.
19 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
28. Further, the PW53 has deposed that he conducted search in the premises of the accused No.1 company and seized 36 items including rubber stamp seals and also impression of rubber stamp seals as per the search list at Ex.P.247. The signature of PW53 in Ex.P.247 is marked at Ex.P.247(a). The PW53 in his evidence has also deposed that on the same day lockers operated in the name of Shantha, the wife of accused No.2 in Vysya Bank, Tharagupete Branch were searched and mahazar was drawn regarding the same as per Exs.P.248 and P.249 respectively. The items found in the lockers were mentioned in the mahazar at Ex.P.249. The signature of PW53 in Exs.P.248 and P.249 are marked at Exs.P.248(a) and P.249(a) respectively. It is also deposed by the PW53 that the mahazars at Exs.P.248 and P.249 bear the signatures of the accused No.2 and of the wife of accused No.2. Subsequently, as the PW53 was repatriated on 15.01.1998, the further investigation of the case was handed over to the then Inspector of Police Sri. Balasubramanyam.
29. As pointed out by the learned counsel for accused No.4, it is true that in the evidence in cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4, the PW53 has deposed that he had gone through the contents of Ex.P.245 including the statement made in the said search list to the effect that the Customs Officials had not exercised due care and caution while releasing the imported goods under bill of exchange No.16461 dated 05.04.1995 before he commenced the investigation. 20 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
30. It is also the evidence of PW53 in cross-examination that he was not aware of the fact whether Mr. Kamaraja had made any preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR and while making observation in Ex.P.245. It is true that the PW53 in his evidence in cross examination has deposed that:
"I had tried to find out the complicity of the customs officials relating to the import of the items of Bill of Entry, in the course of my investigation. But the custom officials could not produce the documents in that regard and thereby I could not investigate from that point of view".
However, the above referred evidence of PW53 in cross-examination does not falsify or disprove the seizure of properties from the premises of the accused No.1 company and the residence of accused No.2 as per the search lists at Exs.P.245 and P.246 and the mahazars at Exs.P.248 and P.249 regarding the lockers operated in the name of the wife of accused No.2 in the concerned Bank.
31. The CW59 Sri. S. Vellaipandi is the then Inspector, CBI, who took up further investigation of the case. He has been examined as PW56. As per the evidence of PW56, during the investigation he recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses and seized the concerned documents and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sec.120-B r/w Sec.420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act. As per the evidence of PW56 in his chief examination during investigation he seized Wipro Computer Printer 21 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 along with computer Floppy and Rubber Stamps under seizer memo. The said Wipro Computer Printer is produced and marked as MO2.
32. It is relevant to note here that in the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4, the PW56 has deposed that:
"A complaint filed by Smt. Girija Muthangi had some enclosures. Ex.P.6 form the basis for FIR registered as per Ex.P.245. Along with Ex.P.6 bill of entry import document as per Ex.P.7 was received. Ex.P.7 to P.13 are the other enclosures of the complaint at Ex.P.6. Ex.P.14 is the copy of Ex.P.7."
The above referred evidence of PW56 clearly goes to show that the contents of the complaint at Ex.P.6 are based on the documents at Exs.P.7 to P.13. It is true that in the evidence in cross-examination of PW56 the relevant portion reads thus:
"It was mandatory to file the documents to the customs through the Customs House Agent (CHA). Jeena and company was registered CHA. Bill of entry is filed in quadruplicate."
Further, the PW56 in his evidence in cross-examination has deposed that:
"I did not make any investigation regarding grant of import export code under the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act 1992. As the word Govt. was mentioned in importer code column, I did not find it necessary to make any enquiry as to the import export code of the said Act. I did not enquire as to any allotment of code in respect of Govt. and the Govt. was the importer. I did not enquire with the customs authorities regarding allotment of import export code as govt. was mentioned as importer".
It is also the evidence of PW56 that the document pertaining to allotment of code to the accused No.1 company is in Ex.P.294. In the 22 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 document at Ex.P.38 there is mention of code number in importer code column and in Exs.P.38 and P.39 the importer code is of accused No.1. In the documents at Exs.P.24(a), P.24(b) and P.24(c) there is no mention of importer code number.
33. There is mention of importer code number only in the original bill of entry produced at Ex.P.24. In the documents at Exs.P.7, P.14 and P.20 the importer is shown as Government, although the importer is the accused No.1 company. It is also the evidence of PW56 that all the import consignments were cleared on production of duty exemption entitlement certificates purported to have been issued by DRDO, Bengaluru. It is true that the PW56 has stated in his evidence in cross- examination that he did not examine any person in the Ministry of Defence with regard to authority competent to issue Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC).
34. However, as pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, the above referred evidence of PW56 in his cross-examination does not make out any ground to disbelieve the case of prosecution. It is the definite case of prosecution that the accused No.4 had no authority to issue any such Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate, but the accused No.4 falsely issued such certificate, which was purported to have been issued by the DRDO. It is not in dispute that the accused No.1 company is the procurer of the goods for the CABS, DRDO. Therefore, the investigation done by the PW56 regarding the case should be 23 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 considered by considering the evidence of the other relevant witnesses examined by the prosecution.
35. The CW53 Sri. Jayaprakash Gowda is the then Police Inspector of Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW57. As per the evidence of PW57, on 04.05.195 at about 4:45 p.m. he received report from Sri. Sundara Raman as per Ex.P.157 and on the strength of said report he registered the FIR in Cr.No.239/1995 of his Police Station. The said FIR is marked at Ex.P.291. The signature of PW57 in Ex.P.291 is marked at Ex.P.291(a). It is true that in the case registered by the PW57 a separate charge sheet was filed against the accused No.3 and other accused persons and the separate case was tried by this Court in Spl.CC. No.163/2000 and the said case was disposed of acquitting the accused No.3 along with other accused persons.
36. The learned counsel for accused No.3 has produced copy of the judgment of the said case at the stage of argument in this case. The cheque at Ex.P.177, the Procurement Contract Agreement at Ex.P.117 and the report of the handwriting expert as per Ex.P.270 are identified by the PW57 in his chief examination. However, on the completion of investigation of the case, the charge sheet was filed and the separate case in Spl.CC. No.163/2000 was registered on the file of this Court against the accused No.3 herein and other accused persons. Hence, the evidence of PW57 in this case is not at all necessary. 24 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
37. The CW54 Sri. K. Ravindra Prasad is the then Station House Officer of Cubbon Park Police Station. He has been examined as PW58. As per the evidence of PW58, he took up further investigation of the concerned case from PW56 Sri. S. Velaipandi and on completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet. The document at Ex.P.278 is the charge sheet filed in the other case mentioned herein. The receipt memo at Ex.P.277 is identified by PW58. The PW58 in his chief examination has deposed that the documents at Sl.No.13 to 17 of the receipt memo at Ex.P.277 are the original purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139. The seizure of those purchase order in the case investigated by PW58 are relevant to the case on hand. But, as discussed herein above the PW58 is the Investigating Officer in the case registered separately by the Court in Spl.CC. No.163/2000. Therefore, the evidence of PW58 also does not merit consideration in the case on hand. However, as per the evidence of PW56, he filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in the case after completion of the investigation.
38. It is undisputed fact that accused No.3 and 4 are officials of CABS in DRDO and hence, they were public officers at the relevant time. However, in the charge sheet itself it is mentioned that the sanction for prosecution of the accused No.3 was issued by the competent Authority and the sanction for prosecution of the accused No.1 to 4 under the customs Act was granted by the competent 25 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Authority and those sanction orders are enclosed with the charge sheet.
39. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the PW38 Sri. Krishna Rao Ramachand is the then Director of CABS at the relevant period. The PW38 has deposed in his evidence in chief examination that the accused No.4, Hari Kumar (it is true that by mistake Hari Kumar is mentioned as accused No.3 in the evidence of PW38, but it is not in dispute that Hari Kumar is accused No.4 in the case) was the Officer working with him in the same institution from 1986 to 1995 and in the year 1994 to 1995 the accused No.4 was working as Manager in Logistics section of the Institution. His institution or organisation is attached to Ministry of Defence, Government of India and as per the Government Regulation, his organisation is authorised to give duty exemption to the items required by them.
40. It is the evidence of PW38 that it is the Director or the alternative Acting Director alone was authorised to issue Duty Exemption Certificate and in his absence it was Mr. A. Tamil Mani who alone was authorised to issue such duty exemption certificate. Except to Mr. Tamil Mani he had not authorised any other person at any time to issue such Exemption Certificate. It is also the evidence of PW38 that the accused No.3 was originally appointed as Lower Division Clerk and thereafter, promoted as Upper Division Clerk and he was working in logistics section.
26 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
41. The evidence of PW38 in chief examination is also that it was the Director who was the appointing Authority as well as Authority to remove from service so far as LDC and UDC of his organisation. Hence, he was competent person to remove the accused No.3 from service. Therefore, he issued sanction order dated 24.12.1999 for prosecution of the accused No.3. The said sanction order is marked at Ex.P.159. The signature of PW38 in Ex.P.159 is marked as Ex.P.159(a).
42. Further, it is the evidence of PW38 that the sanction order at Ex.P.159 was forwarded from his office to CBI by Wing Commander Srinivas, the then Security Officer under the covering letter dated 24.12.1999, which is marked at Ex.P.160. The signature of the said Srinivas in Ex.P.160 is identified by PW38 and same is marked at Ex.P.160(a). It is pertinent to note that the PW38 in his evidence has identified the bill of entry at Ex.P.7 and the PW38 has deposed that the said bill of entry was for home consumption and there is endorsement in black ink at Ex.P.7(c) as 'Director DRDO certificate produced'. But the PW38 has further deposed that they had not placed any order for purchase of aluminium plates mentioned in the bill of entry at Ex.P.7 and his organisation deals with Defence aircrafts articles.
43. Moreover, the PW38 has also identified the documents at Ex.P.23 as certificate for exemption from customs duty and he has deposed that it was issued by the accused No.4 and the accused No.4 was not authorised to issue such certificate at Ex.P.23. It is also the 27 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 evidence of PW38 that as Director of CABS he had authorised for purchase of 10 to 12 imported items of defence aircraft materials from the accused No.1 company and total cost of such purchase would not have exceeded Rs.10 lakh. The PW38 has identified the document at Ex.P.4, which is the letter dated 05.10.1995 allegedly written by Shamal M. Baliga, the then Logistic Officer and the said letter was written by the said Baliga on behalf of the Director to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai.
44. The PW38 has also identified the letter at Ex.P.161 as the letter addressed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs in February 1996 to the Director of his organisation asking them to appear for hearing in connection with duty exemption certificate of the accused No.1 company. The letter at Ex.P.8 identified by PW38 is the letter dated 13.03.1996 written by him to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The signature of PW38 in Ex.P.8 is marked at Ex.P.8(a). The document at Ex.P.10 is the letter dated 21.03.1996 written by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to PW38 asking him certain details and particulars relating to the alleged purchase made by his organisation as mentioned in the said letter.
45. The PW38 has also deposed regarding the agreement of procurement contract dated 17.10.1994 bearing No.94/2 which is marked at Ex.P.106. The PW38 in his chief examination has deposed that the signature purported to be appearing in page No.3 of the said 28 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 agreement is that of K. Ramachand is not his signature. The said signature is marked at Ex.P.106(h) for reference. If the said evidence of PW38 is taken to consideration, it is clear that his signature in Ex.P.106 is forged signature and he had not signed the said agreement of procurement contract at Ex.P.106. Therefore, the authenticity or otherwise of the document at Ex.P.106 should be considered along with other oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record.
46. It is true that the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has subjected PW38 for cross-examination. It is very interesting to note that even though the PW38 in his evidence in cross-examination has deposed that he cannot identify in certainty the authenticity of the signature of the accused No.4, it is suggested by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 to PW38 that the accused No.4 by issuing the said orders in the letterhead of his organisation misled the accused No.1 and 2. It is true that regarding the said suggestion the PW38 has stated that he has no comment to make to that suggestion. However, the case of the accused No.1 and 2 as suggested to PW38 clearly goes to show that the accused No.1 and 2 admit that the accused No.4 issued the orders in the letter head of CABS, DRDO.
47. Moreover, the PW38 has admitted the suggestion of the learned counsel for accused No.4 in his cross-examination, which reads thus:
"It is true that once purchase orders are issued by accused No.4, if 29 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 additional requirement is there, accused No.4 can issue repeat orders, but only after following due procedure".
This suggestion of accused No.4 to PW38 in cross-examination shows that it is the case of accused No.4 that he could issue repeat orders once purchase order was issued by him. This suggestion is quite contrary to the defence put forth by the accused No.4 that he did not issue any purchase orders as per Exs.P.127 to P.139.
48. Further, the relevant portion in the evidence in cross- examination of PW38 reads thus:
"It is true that in Ex.P.8 which is the letter written by me to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, I had stated that some persons had forged the signature of accused No.4 and photo copy of the original signature of accused No.4 is enclosed for reference along with Ex.P.8".
Moreover, the relevant portion in the evidence in cross-examination of PW38 by the learned counsel for accused No.4 reads thus:
"It is true that for the good service done by accused No.4 I had recommended his name for the VS medal to be issued by Government of India in the year 1994, in respect of his meritorious service from 1986 to 1994. Witness volunteers to state that it was at his special request that Indian Navy deputed him to our organisation. It is also true that his service was outstanding."
On the basis of the said suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused No.4 to PW38, the accused No.4 has tried to make out a case that he did good and meritorious service in CABS, DRDO and hence, there was no chance of him committing any of the offences charged against him in the case. However, mere fact that the accused No.4 was recommended for any medal to be issued by the Government for any 30 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 good and meritorious service does not mean to say that he did not commit any offences as alleged in the case.
49. Further, the learned counsel for accused No.4 has also suggested to PW38 in the cross-examination that without purchase order there could not be any purchase and that based on the value of the material to be purchased the different committees were constituted and after the purchase was accepted the bill was passed and signed by him and thereafter it would go to Controller of Defence Account (CDA), which would make the payment. The said suggestion is admitted by PW38. Moreover, PW38 has also admitted that the contents of the document at Ex.D.12 is true and correct.
50. As forthcoming on record, it is clear that the document at Ex.D.12 is the written submission made by the Sri. Sanjay Thandan Director MM for DG DRDO in this case to the Court along with enclosures which are Notification No.155/94 dated 13.07.1994, Notification No.184/94 dated 09.11.1994, Notification No.66/95 dated 16.03.1995 and Notification No.135/95 dated 04.09.1995. The copies of those Notifications are filed along with written submission at Ex.D.12. The prosecution has not chosen to examine the said Sanjay Thandan who made written submission to the Court as per Ex.D.12. The document at Ex.D.12 was got marked by the learned counsel for accused No.4 in the evidence of PW52 T.K. Jayaraman the then Commissioner of Customs, Cochin at the relevant time. It is true that as 31 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 on the date of PW52 giving evidence before this Court in chief examination he was member of CESTAT, Bengaluru. As discussed herein above PW38 in his evidence as deposed that the contents of document at Ex.D.12 are true and correct. But such evidence of PW38 by itself does not make the cumulative effect of his evidence regarding the case alleged against the accused persons in the case disbelievable.
51. The prosecution has recalled PW38 for further evidence and subjected him to further chief examination, in which the PW38 has identified the document at Ex.P.252(b), which is said to be a copy of indent letter dated 10.02.1994 issued by the accused No.4 on behalf of his office to the accused No.1 company. But the PW38 has clearly stated that such letter was not issued from his office and he being the Director of CABS was competent person to issue such letter and the accused No.4 was not competent person to issue any such letter. The signature of accused No.4 in the said document is already marked as Ex.P.252 and the seal of FSL is marked at Ex.P.252(a).
52. The PW38 has also identified the purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139, which are crucial documents in the case on hand. The PW38 has deposed that those purchase orders were signed by the accused No.4 and such purchase orders were not issued from his office. It is also the evidence of PW38 that the value of items shown in those purchase orders are very high and for placing such purchase orders, required procedure was not followed and all those purchase 32 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 orders are fabricated documents and that as he was the Director, it was impossible to purchase such items without his knowledge.
53. Moreover, the documents at Exs.P.23, P.25, P.40, P.44, P.50, P.54, P.57(a), P.83(e), P.87(e), P.89(a), P.92(f), P.94(a), P.95(b), P.98(a) and P.101(b) of PW38 are Duty Exemption Certificates allegedly related to the purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139. The PW38 has deposed that he did not issue any such Exemption Certificates and that during the relevant point of time the PW35 Sri. Tamil Mani, the then acting Director, also did not issue such certificates. Those duty exemption certificates bear the signatures of the accused No.4 and the accused No.4 was not authorised or empowered to issue such certificates. The documents at Exs.P.18, P.19 and P.126 are identified by the PW38 as the letters issued by the accused No.4 to the Assistant Collector of Customs, declaration signed by the accused No.4 and letter said to have been issued from his office respectively. It is the definite evidence of PW38 that the accused No.4 was not empowered or authorised to issue such letters and declaration at Exs.P.18 and P.19 respectively.
54. It is also the evidence of PW38 that the letter at Ex.P.126 is fake document and contents of the said letter are false and that the contract worth Rs.48 crores and process of issue of cheque stated in that letter at Ex.P.126 were not pending in his office or head office. Further, it is deposed by the PW38 that there is no procedure in his office for issuing post dated cheque. As per the evidence of PW38, the 33 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139 are not genuine documents and they were not issued by the Authorised persons and as per the laid down procedure and that the items mentioned in those purchase orders were not required by CABS at that time.
55. It is true that in the evidence of PW38 in cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 regarding the purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139, the counsel for accused No.4 has suggested to PW38 that as the Director of DRDO the PW38 was aware that there were lots of procedures required to be followed when third party import of any items were made by the DRDO and the Committee was to be formed for recommending the purchase and it had to be approved by the Director or any higher officers and that if there was any discrepancy in the purchase orders such as the purchase order issued by incompetent Authority, with that of the item imported, the item would not be released by the Customs Authority.
56. The PW38 has admitted those suggestions as true, but such suggestions of the learned counsel for accused No.4 in the evidence of cross-examination of PW38 do not make out any ground to disbelieve the case of prosecution that the accused No.4 is no way concerned with the purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.138 and herein above mentioned duty exemption certificates relating to those purchase orders. Moreover, truth or otherwise of the testimony of PW38 should be testified along with the oral evidence of the other relevant witnesses and also with the 34 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 concerned relevant documentary evidence. Hence, even if the above said suggestion of the counsel for accused No.4 is admitted by PW38 in his evidence in cross examination, such admission does not make out any ground to discard his evidence in its entirety.
57. The CW45 the Wing Commander K.V. Srinivasan is the then Material Management officer in CABS during the relevant period. He has been examined as PW40. His name is referred to by PW38 in his evidence regarding issue of the sanction order as per Ex.P.159 and the covering letter at Ex.P.160. The PW40 has deposed that he was also Security Officer at CABS and he has stated that the covering letter at Ex.P.160 was addressed by him to the Superintendent of Police, CBI and under the said letter he forwarded the prosecution sanction order at Ex.P.159. His signature in Ex.P.160 is at Ex.P.160(a).
58. The PW50 M.V.S. Prasad is additional witness, who is not shown in the charge sheet. The PW50 is the then Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and he was competent Authority to issue prosecution sanction order in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of Customs Act. Accordingly, he issued sanction order on 04.04.2000 for prosecuting the accused persons in respect of the false declaration and the said sanction order is marked at Ex.P.239. The signature of PW50 in Ex.P.239 is marked at Ex.P.239(a). 35 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
59. The PW50 has deposed that the sanction order at Ex.P.239 was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, CBI under letter dated 05.04.2000 by his sub-ordinate officer Sri. J.K. Simte and the said letter is marked at Ex.P.240. The PW50 has also deposed that he mentioned in Ex.P.239 about the documents which were sent to him by the Investigation Officer. There is no material in the evidence in cross- examination of PW50 to disbelieve his evidence regarding his competency to issue sanction order as per Ex.P.239 for prosecuting the accused persons for the offences under Customs Act.
60. However, the learned counsel for accused No.4 in the evidence in cross examination of PW50 has referred to the document titled as 'Customs Tariff of India 1995-96' by R.K. Jain and at page 72 of the said document it is stated that the Exemption Certificate under the Customs Act will have to be issued by the officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary and above of the Government of India. The said document is got marked at Ex.D.2 by the accused No.4 in the evidence in cross examination of PW50. But there is no material forthcoming from the accused No.4 to show that the PW50 was not the competent Authority to issue sanction order at Ex.P.239.
61. The PW51 A.P. Sudhir is also additional witness not shown in the charge sheet. He is the then Commissioner of Customs in Bengaluru. As per the evidence of PW51, he issued sanction order for prosecuting the accused persons as per Ex.P.241. The letter dated 36 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 25.08.2000 at Ex.P.242 is the letter of Deputy Commissioner of Customs issued for forwarding the sanction order at Ex.P.241 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai.
62. The PW52 T.K. Jayaraman, the then Commissioner of Customs, Cochin is also additional witness. His evidence is regarding issue of prosecution sanction order dated 08.02.2000 pertaining to the accused No.1 company and other accused persons for prosecuting them in respect of the false declaration. The said sanction order is marked at Ex.P.243. The PW52 has deposed that before issuing the said sanction order the documents were perused by him and those documents are mentioned in Ex.P.243. His subordinate officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs under the letter dated 11.02.2000 as per Ex.P.244 forwarded the sanction order at Ex.P.244 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI.
63. In the evidence in cross-examination of PW52, the learned counsel for accused No.4 has referred to some Notifications. The xerox copies of those Notifications are got marked by the accused No.4 at Exs.D.5 to D.11. It is true that the PW52 has admitted in his evidence in cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 that:
"for any Import, the requirement of Import Code under the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992 is mandatory. The Import Code is known as IE Code. Even the Government Body is required to have IE Code. Normally the goods are not permitted to cleared for consumption if IE Code is not obtained. It is true that all goods imported unless exempted are liable for payment of duty. It is true that the exemption from payment of duty is only by way of Notification under Section 25 of Customs Act, 1962."37 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
It is also the evidence of PW52 in cross-examination by the counsel for accused No.4 that:
"According to Notification bearing No.155/1994, for purposes of goods set out in Part-A orders of Government of India and for the goods set out in Part-B the certificate issued by Under Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of India and for goods in Part-C, the certificate issued by Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs are absolutely necessary. Without such orders and certificates goods cannot be permitted to exempt from payment of duty."
Moreover, the relevant portion in the evidence of PW52 in cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 reads thus:
"If any person other than the specified authorities in the said Notification signs the certificate the goods are not permitted to be cleared. It is true that the certificate signed by incompetent person cannot entitle the goods being cleared for consumption."
The written submission of Director (Material Manager) for Director General DRDO with its enclosures and xerox copy of the Notification bearing No.136/1979 are got marked by the accused No.4 at Exs.D.12 and Ex.D.13 respectively in cross-examination of PW52.
64. It is true that the PW52 has deposed in his evidence in cross- examination by the counsel for accused No.4 that he cannot recollect whether any proceeding under Section 124 of Customs Act was initiated against the importers before accord of sanction for prosecution of accused No.4 by him. But any of the materials in the evidence in cross- examination of PW38, PW40 and PW50 to PW52 does not make the case of prosecution regarding the sanction orders at Exs.P.159, P.239 38 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 and P.241 disbelievable. It is undisputed fact that the accused No.4 had already retired from service as on the date of filing of the charge sheet.
65. The argument of the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that the prosecution should have obtained sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and as the prosecution has not obtained any sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. the prosecution initiated against the accused No.4 is of any law. In support of this argument the counsel for accused No.4 has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Cr.A. No.190/2014 (Devinder Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab through CBI) decided on 25.04.2016, in which it is held that:
"The trial Court has prima-facie to proceed on the basis of prosecution version and can re-decide the question afresh in case from the evidence adduced by the prosecution or by the accused or in any manner it comes to the notice of the court that there was a reasonable nexus of the incident with discharge of official duty, the court shall re-examine the question of sanction and take decision in accordance with law".
The counsel for accused No.4 has also drawn the attention of this Court to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cr.) 478 (N.K. Ganguly V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi) in which it is held that:
"For purpose of obtaining previous sanction from appropriate Government under Sec.197 of Cr.P.C., it is imperative that alleged offence is committed in discharge of official duty by accused. It is also important for court to examine allegations against accused, to decided whether previous sanction is required to be obtaining from appropriate Government before taking cognizance of alleged offence against accused".
There is absolutely no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down 39 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 in the above referred decisions regarding sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
66. However, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the above referred criminal appeal the appellants being accused persons were Officers of Punjab Police and case alleged against them was under
Sec.6 of Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983. In the above referred N.K. Ganguly's case the accused persons are Officers of Co-operative group Housing Society Limited and they being Government Officers it was held that the sanction under Sec.197 of Cr.P.C. was required. But in the case on hand, the offence charge sheeted is punishable under the relevant provision of PC Act. It is undisputed fact that the accused No.4 was retired from service as on the date of filing of the charge sheet in the case. Hence, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the sanction under Sec.197 of Cr.P.C. is not at all necessary in the case on hand for prosecuting the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence charge sheeted against them. Therefore, even if there is no previous sanction obtained by the prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C in this case for prosecuting the accused No.4, who had retired from service as on the date of filing of the charge sheet, it does not vitiate the proceeding against the accused No.4.
67. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the detection of fraud alleged against the accused persons was initially found out in view of the letter dated 13.03.1996 at Ex.P.8 by the CABS to Assistant 40 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Commissioner of Customs in which certain details and particulars relating to the alleged purchase made by DRDO were sought for. The relevant portion in the letter at Ex.P.8 reads thus:
"It is feared that some other person/ persons have imported the items forgoing the signature of K. Harikumar, Cdr who was working in this organisation at that time. Photocopy of the original signature of Cdr, K. Harikumar is enclosed for reference. Incidentally it may be stated that one individual who was working in this organisation at that time was arrested by the Police for presenting a cheque for Rs.93 crores forging the signature of the concerned officers and is now under the suspension. The criminal case is still under trial with the police authorities. This person had access to all the documents in the office and is now the prime suspect of the lost cheque leaf also."
As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the person Harikumar mentioned in the said letter at Ex.P.8 is the accused No.4 in this case and the another person, who was allegedly prime suspect of the lost cheque leaf is referred to the accused No.3 against whom along with other persons the separate case in Spl.CC. No.361/2002 was registered on the file of this Court regarding the lost of cheque leaf. While discussing the evidence of PW38 herein above regarding the sanction order at Ex.P.159, his evidence regarding the letter at Ex.P.8 is also referred to.
68. Moreover, as discussed herein above, the PW38 has identified the procurement contract agreement at Ex.P.106. The PW38 has clearly stated in his evidence that his signature was forged and he did not enter into any agreement with the accused No.1 company. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, the demand notice 41 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 at Ex.P.3 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Madras to CABS, DRDO. In the said demand notice at Ex.P.3 it is clearly mentioned that:
"It appears that exemption duty amounting to Rs.6,55,180/- (Rupess Six Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Only) was not levied/ short levied/ erroneously refunded in respect of the above consignment for the reasons stated below. "
The consignment number mentioned in the said Demand Notice is BEIGM No.16461/5.4.95. Therefore, the evidence of PW38 and the documents at Exs.P.3, P.8 and P.106 clearly point at the accused No.3 and 4 regarding the consignment for importing the concerned goods under purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139 and the concerned bill of entry by issuing false Duty Exemption Certificates for claiming exemption of duty payable on import of such goods.
69. Now it is relevant to refer to the evidence of Customs House Agents, who are examined in this case. The CW9 K. Devanathan is the then Clearing Clerk in Jeena & Co., Chennai at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW4. As per the evidence of PW4, Jeena & Co. used to clear the cargo on behalf of the importers. The evidence of PW4 is regarding the bill of entry No.44294 dated 06.10.1994, duty exemption certificate dated 03.10.1994, authorisation letter dated 03.10.1994 given by DRDO to Harikumar (the accused No.4), bill of lading dated 01.09.1994, authorisation letter dated 05.08.1994 given by DRDO to Jeena & Co., packing list dated 05.08.1994, original declaration given by DRDO and GATT declaration given by both DRDO 42 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 and South End Technology (the accused No.1 company). Those documents are marked at Exs.P.24 to P.31 respectively. The 3 copies of the bill of entry at Ex.P.24 are produced and marked at Exs.P.24(a) to P.24(c). The import application bearing No.740/65 dated 10.10.1994 is also got marked at Ex.P.32 in the evidence of PW4.
70. The evidence of PW4 is that as per Ex.P.32 an amount of Rs.571/- was paid as a harbour due on behalf of the importer. The documents at Ex.P.33 is the lorry receipt dated 25.10.1994 and as per the said receipt the consignment was transported in the name of the accused No.1 company. Further, the PW4 has identified the documents at Exs.P.7, P.14, P.15 and P.17 to P.23 as the documents submitted by the Jeena & Co.,The PW4 has deposed that those documents were signed by Power of Attorney Ramachandran and the name of the importer is CABS, DRDO. It is true that the PW4 in his evidence in chief examination itself has deposed that there is change in the name of importer in Exs.P.7 and P.14. But he has further deposed that regarding those documents at Ex.P.7 and P.14 the authorisation letter was given by Harikumar of CABS, DRDO (the accused No.4) as per Ex.P.18.
71. Further, the evidence of PW4 is that the accused No.4 gave Ex.P.23 for exemption of customs duty and based on the documents at Exs.P.18 and P.23 the customs duty was exempted. It is also the evidence of PW4 that the authorisation letter dated 30.03.1995 was given by the accused No.4 in favour of M/s. Cargo Section, Madras 43 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Port, Madras, authorising M/s. Jeena & Co. to collect all the documents. The General Authorisation letter is marked at Ex.P.34. The import application dated 08.04.1995 to clear the 4 packages is marked at Ex.P.35 in the evidence of PW4. The PW4 has stated in his evidence in chief examination that as per Ex.P.35 an amount of Rs.4,227/- was paid as harbour due.
72. Moreover, it is the evidence of PW4 that after payment of the dues the goods were got released and transported through All India Trailer Transport from Madras to Bangalore and having transported those goods they issued carrier receipt dated 10.04.1995 as per Ex.P.36. The covering letter dated 21.03.1995 to clear the cargo on behalf of the importers given by the accused No.1 company is marked at Ex.P.37. It is very interesting to note that in the evidence in cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 the suggestion by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 is admitted by the PW4.
73. The relevant portion in the evidence in cross examination of PW4 reads thus:
"It is true to suggest that Mr. C.Shivakumar attended the port- operations. It is true to suggest that the procurer will be having the authority of taking delivery of goods on behalf of the importer."
However, the PW4 pleads ignorance of the suggestion that the accused No.1 company is the importer on behalf of CABS as per Ex.P.32. The 44 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 learned counsel for accused No.3 has not chosen to cross examine PW4. The evidence of PW4 in the cross-examination by the counsel for accused No.4 is that he was not acquainted with the accused persons and he does not know the accused No.4 Harikumar. However, as argued by the learned Prosecutor, if the evidence of PW4 is considered in its entirety, it is clear that there is no denial of the concerned consignments and transport of the goods and also of the documents at Exs.P.24 to P.37 by the accused No.3 and 4.
74. The CW3 G. Perumal is also the then Clearing Clerk of Jeena & Co., Customs Clearing Agents at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW5. The evidence of PW5 is that the documents at Exs.P.7 and P.14 to P.23 were filed by him before the Customs Authorities on behalf of Jeena & Co. and that CABS, DRDO was the importer of those consignments of allumunium plates. It is also the evidence of PW5 that as per Exs.P.18 and P.23 the accused No.4 issued Exemption Certificates to exempt the Customs duty and based on those documents at Exs.P.18 and P.23 Customs duty was exempted on the consignment mentioned in Ex.P.7.
75. The learned counsel for accused No.3 and the learned counsel for accused No.4 have not chosen to cross examine PW5. However, the case of the accused No.1 and 2 in the evidence in cross examination of PW5 is that on the basis of the concerned bill of lading and invoices, the PW5 prepared Exs.P.7, P.14 and P.20. Further, the 45 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 PW5 has admitted the case of the accused No.1 and 2 in his evidence in cross-examination that once the bill of entry was given to Customs Authority it would not be accessible to third person and that it would not be allowed to be altered. But it is not the case of the accused No.1 and 2 that no any third person had any access to the concerned bill of entry. On the other hand, the case of prosecution is that the concerned purchase orders were forged making them purported to have been placed by the CABS, DRDO.
76. The CW11 S. Ramachandra Sharma is the then Manager of Jeena & Co., Cochin at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW17. As per the evidence of PW17, the Flexy Freight is the agent of Jeena and Co. and Flexy Freight sent a message to Jeena & Co. stating that one 40 feet container was given on account of the accused No.1 company. The PW17 sent the said message to the accused No.1 company informing that the consignment was given and then he received the documents such as invoices, packing list, duty exemption letter and other required documents pertaining to the said container materials through Mr. Murthy (CW34). The bill of entry No.3351 dated 19.09.1994 and duplicate and triplicate copies of the said bill of entry are marked at Exs.P.47 to P.49 respectively. The PW17 has deposed that the documents at Ex.P.50 is the exemption certificate produced by CW34 and while filing the documents at Exs.P.47 to P.49 the document at Ex.P.50 was also filed.
46 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
77. It is also the evidence of PW17 that another message from Flexy Freight was received and he sent the said message to CW34 and to one Ravishankar. His company received the documents such as invoice, packing list, duty exemption letter and other required documents personally from CW34. They completed the customs formalities and cleared the cargo. But they did not dispatch the cargo to Bengaluru as per the personal instructions of CW34. After physical examination by CW34, they stored the cargo in a rented godown as instructed by him. The PW17 has also identified the bill of entry at Ex.P.54 and the duplicate and triplicate copies of the said bill of entry as per Ex.P.55 and P.56 respectively. The documents at Ex.P.54(b) is the exemption certificate given by CW34 and that Ex.P.54(d) and (e) are also given by CW34 to Jeena & Co.
78. Further, the PW17 has deposed regarding the another consignment, wherein his company received documents such as invoices packing list, bill of lading, duty exemption letter and all other declarations from CW34. The document at Ex.P.57(a) is the certificate for duty exemption. The Ex.P.57(b) is the authorisation letter and Ex.P.57 is the bill of entries. The documents at Exs.P.58 and P.59 are duplicate and triplicate copies of Ex.P.57. In the evidence in cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the PW17 has deposed that as per the address of importer in Ex.P.47, CABS was the importer, but he did not know whether the accused No.1 is the 47 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 procurer for such import of goods. The PW17 has deposed that he cannot say whether duty exemption could be given only where the importer is either the Government of India or Defence Establishment. The PW17 has further deposed that when he was in Jeena & Co. the present case was the only case handled for Defence Establishment.
79. The learned counsel for accused No.3 has not chosen to cross examine PW17. Further, there is no material forthcoming in the evidence of PW17 in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 to make his evidence disbelievable regarding the documents referred to in his evidence. Moreover, the suggestion of the learned counsel for accused No.4 in the evidence in cross examination of PW17 is that the Ex.P.54 is a forged document, to which the PW17 has pleaded ignorance. Further, the PW17 has denied that his company colluded with the importer for getting clearance of goods without following the legal formalities.
80. The CW10 Suresh, is the then proprietor of Raghavendra Shipping and Clearing Agencies, Chennai. He has been examined as PW18. At the relevant time he was working in Jeena & Co., as Manager (Imports). The evidence of PW18 is regarding the bills of entries at Exs.P.24 and P.7 and corresponding lorry receipts at Exs.P.36 and 33 in respect of the bills of entries at Exs.P.24 and P.7 respectively. There is no dispute by the accused No.3 and 4 in the evidence of PW18 regarding the consignment of goods as per the bills of entry at Exs.P.24 48 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 and P.7. However, in the evidence in cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4, the PW18 has admitted that one Mr. Murthy used to appear before them representing the accused No.1 for handing over all the necessary documents which included duty exemption certificate for clearance of the consignment.
81. The CW13 P.G. Vakkachan was the Customs House Agent Clerk at Customs House, Cochin for the relevant time. He has been examined as PW20. The evidence of PW20 is regarding the bills of entry at Exs.P.47 and P.57. Any of the accused persons has not chosen to subject PW20 to cross examine. Therefore, the evidence of PW20 regarding the bills of entry at Exs.P.47 and P.57 stands not controverted.
82. The CW26 V. Ravi Kumar is the person doing Clearing and Forwarding business in the name and style of Venus Shipping Pvt. Ltd. at Bengaluru at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW30. The evidence of PW30 is that he knew the accused No.1 company and his company had business with accused No.1 company in the year 1994 and that the accused No.1 company was importing goods for Defence Unit called CABS, Bengaluru. The evidence of PW30 is regarding the bills of entry at Exs.P.38, P.39 and P.41. The PW30 has also deposed that Exs.P.42 and P.43 are duplicate and quadruplicate copies of bill of entry. His signatures in Exs.P.42 and P.43 are marked at Exs.P.42(b) and P.43(b) respectively. The PW30 has deposed that the Ex.P.44 is 49 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 xerox copy of the original duty exemption certificate issued by CABS and the Exs.P.45 and P.46 are original invoices and they are the enclosures of the documents at Exs.P.42 and P.43.
83. Further, the evidence of PW30 is that the consignment covered under Exs.P.42 and P.43 were adhesive transfer tapes which were consumer items and therefore, duty exemption could not be claimed for the same and accordingly he informed the accused No.1 company and then the accused No.1 company asked him to hold the papers for some time till they approach CABS and get the duty exemption certificate. Thereafter the accused No.2 brought the officials of CABS and they met the CW28 Padmanabhan, the then Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The CW28 rejected the request of the accused No.2 and also the explanation of officials from CABS. It is also the evidence of PW30 that the official of CABS who had met CW28 on that occasion was one Mr. Harikumar (the accused No.4) and the accused No.4 requested CW28 to take an undertaking from CABS and release the consignment duty free and accordingly, the cargo was released duty free and handed over to the accused No.1 company.
84. The evidence of PW30 is also regarding the bills of entries prepared by them as per Exs.P.83(h), P.84(b) and P.85(b). The documents at Ex.P.83(e) is the duty exemption certificate given by CABS. The Ex.P.86 is invoice. The Exs.P.87 and P.88 are original and triplicate copy of bill of entry. The Exs.P.92 and P.93 are original and 50 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 duplicate copies of bill of entry prepared by him. The Ex.P.94 is also bill of entry prepared by him. The Ex.P.95 and P.96 are original and duplicate copies of bill of entry. The Ex.P.97 is quadruplicate copy of bill of entry. The documents at Exs.P.98 to P.105 are also the concerned bills of entry and copies of delivery challans.
85. Moreover, the PW30 has deposed that his company delivered the consignment to the accused No.1 company and took acknowledgement. His company got the enclosed documents to the bill of entry from the accused No.1 company and that even though the goods were meant for CABS, his company had nothing to do with it. The PW30 has clearly identified that the accused No.2 is the proprietor of accused No.1 company. In the evidence in cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 it is admitted by PW30 that to get customs duty exemption for the goods, the necessary certificate would have to be given by CABS itself and that in all the 10 consignments, the duty exemption certificate was given by CABS. It is also admitted by PW30 that the CABS was the importers of the goods through the accused No.1 company and that the duty exemption could be granted only because CABS is a Defence Establishment.
86. The counsel for accused No.3 has not chosen to cross examine PW30. Even though the counsel for accused No.4 has cross examined PW30, there is no material in such cross-examination to disbelieve the bills of entry regarding 10 consignments stated by 51 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 PW30. It is true that in the evidence in cross examination the PW30 has deposed that the accused No.4 did not sign the concerned letter of undertaking at Ex.P.108 in his presence and that he had seen the accused No.4 for the first time in the Customs House when he came there to request clearance of the consignment duty free. It is suggested by the the learned counsel for accused No.4 to PW30 in the evidence in cross examination that the accused No.3 had impersonated himself as the accused No.4 on the particular day, but the said suggestion is denied by PW30.
87. Further, it is the evidence of PW30 in his cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 that:
"It may be so if you suggest to me that the signatures on Ex.P.108 are that of A3 and not that of A4. I do not know if you suggest to me that the signatures of A4 are forged in Ex.P.108."
The above referred suggestion clearly goes to show that the accused No.3 and 4 does not deny his part in the concerned consignment of goods. The case of the accused No.4 is that his signature was forged in the concerned documents. It is also suggested to PW30 in his evidence in cross-examination that the signatures at Exs.P.44(a), P.83(e), P.87(e), P.89(a), P.92(f), P.94(a), P.95(a), P.95(b), P.98(a), P.98(b) and P.101(b) are forged signatures of the accused No.4. But the PW30 has pleaded ignorance of the said suggestion. Hence, from the evidence of PW30 it is clear that the accused No.4 does not deny that there are his signatures in the above referred concerned documents. The case of 52 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 accused No.4 is only that those signatures are his forged signatures. But there is no specific case put forth by accused No.4 to show why and by whom those signatures were forged, if at all those signatures were his forged signatures.
88. The CW25 T.G. Radhakrishnan is the then Manager of Jeena & Co., Cochin Branch. He has been examined as PW33. As per the evidence of PW33, he took charge of the office from its previous Manager Mr. Sharma (CW17) and at the time of taking charge Mr. Sharma showed him about his consignments kept in the 2 godowns cleared by Jeena & Co. on behalf of the accused No.1 company. The evidence of PW33 is also regarding copies of receipts at Exs.P.140 to P.145 regarding six consignments. The PW33 has deposed that during the investigation of the case CBI officials took the entry file in connection with the transaction from his office as per the receipt memo at Ex.P.146. The said entire file with enclosures is marked at Ex.P.147. The documents at Exs.P.148 and P.149 are other 2 files seized by the CBI officials from his office. The xerox copy of bill of entry dated 21.03.1995 and carbon copy of bill of entry dated 19.09.1994 are part of the files at Exs.P.148 and P.149 respectively.
89. Moreover, the PW33 has deposed that they maintain a register for the receipt of the documents from the importers and open their file and that they give them file number. The PW33 has also deposed that his company had received three jobs from the accused 53 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 No.1 company and those three jobs were entered in the Job Register maintained in his office. The concerned Job register is produced and marked at Ex.P.150 and relevant entry in the said register is marked at Ex.P.150(a). There is no cross-examination of PW33 by the learned counsel for accused No.4.
90. However, the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has subjected PW33 to cross-examination, in which the PW33 has deposed that:
"On seeing the bill of entries I find that it is mentioned that the consignments were exempted from the payment of customs duty. I am not aware that the customs duty was exempted because those consignments were imported for the defence purposes, as I was not present at that time".
If the above referred evidence of PW33 in cross-examination is taken to consideration, it is clear that the accused No.1 company and its proprietor, the accused No.2, did not deny importing of goods as per the consignments stated by the PW33 in his evidence.
91. The CW5 S. Sudarshan is the then Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. He has been examined as PW2. The evidence of PW2 is regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.7. The Ex.P.20 is duplicate copy of Ex.P.7. The evidence of PW2 is that the items mentioned in Ex.P.20 were assessed by the Appraiser Dattakumar and he countersigned the original bill at Ex.P.7. The signature of PW2 in Ex.P.7 is marked at Ex.P.7(a). Before he countersigned the bill of entry at Ex.P.7, he verified the invoice dated 21.02.1994, ocean bill of lading 54 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 and another invoice countersigned by the Duty Exemption Authority. He also verified the duty exemption certificate dated 23.03.1995, which is marked at Ex.P.21 and invoice at Ex.P.22. The said certificate for exemption from customs duty is marked at Ex.P.23. The Ex.P.14 is duplicate copy of the bill of entry at Ex.P.7.
92. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has subjected PW2 to cross-examination. However, the learned counsel for accused No.3 and the learned counsel for accused No.4 have not chosen to cross examine PW2. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 regarding the bills of entry at Exs.P.7, P.14, P.21 and P.22 and the duty exemption certificate at Ex.P.23 stands not controverted. It is the definite evidence of PW2 that as per Ex.P.7, the concerned party was entitled for exemption of custom duty to the tune of Rs.6.50 lakh on the imported consignment.
93. The said Dattakumar referred to by the PW2 in his evidence is CW4 and he has been examined as PW3. The PW3 is the then Appraiser at Customs House, Chennai. The evidence of PW3 is also regarding the bills of entries at Exs.P.7, P.14 and P.20. Those documents were assessed by him and the total assessable value of the goods was Rs.10,74,066/- The learned counsel for accused No.3 has not chosen to cross examine PW3. However, the learned counsel for accused No.4 has subjected PW3 to cross examination. But there is absolutely no dispute by the accused No.4 in the evidence in cross- 55 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 examination of PW3 of the documents at Exs.P.7, P.14 and P.20 regarding the consignments of the concerned goods through the accused No.1 company.
94. The CW6 Ajay Kumar is also the then Customs Appraiser in Customs House, Chennai at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW15. The evidence of PW15 is regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.24, duty exemption certificate at Ex.P.25 and invoice at Ex.P.28. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for accused No.3 have not chosen to cross examine PW15. However, in the evidence in cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4, it is the evidence of PW15 that he had given a copy of the Circular to the CBI Police during the course of investigation and such Circular showed that in case of Government imports, the examination is waived. The PW15 has admitted in his evidence in cross examination that there are some corrections in the last but one line of para 2 in the certificate of Ex.P.25. However, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, there is absolutely no material forthcoming from the accused No.4 to disbelieve the evidence of PW15 regarding bill of entry at Ex.P.24, invoice at Ex.P.28 and duty exemption certificate at Ex.P.25.
95. The CW8 V.C. Khole is also the then Appraiser in Customs House, Chennai at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW16. The evidence of PW16 is that his duty as Customs Appraiser (Audit) was checking of value and duty and bill of entry assessed by Group. 56 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 The PW16 has deposed regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.24. In the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2, it is clearly admitted by the accused No.1 and 2 that the accused No.1 company was procurer for the importer CABS. Further, in the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 the PW16 has deposed that DRDO was the consignee under Ex.P.24 and he did not have suspicion after seeing the name and address of CABS, DRDO accounts M/s. South End Technologies (the accused No.1 company).
96. The PW16 has not agreed to the suggestion of the learned counsel for accused No.4 in his cross-examination that the competent Authority to sign or issue Exemption Certificate is only the Officer of the cadre of Join Secretary of Government of India. There is no dispute by the accused No.1 to 4 of the consignment as per bill of entry at Ex.P.24 in the name of DRDO through the accused No.1 company. The case of prosecution is that the accused No.4 without having any authority issued the concerned purchase orders and also duty exemption certificates in the name of CABS, DRDO. Therefore, even though it is evidence of PW16 that the DRDO is the Importer under the bill of entry at Ex.P.24, it does not falsify the case of prosecution alleged against the accused persons.
97. Now it is relevant to advert to the evidence of Customs Officials of Customs House, Cochin. The CW14 V.K. Umesh is the then 57 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Appraiser in Customs House, Cochin. He has been examined as PW8. The evidence of PW8 is regarding bill of entry at Ex.P.47. The duplicate and triplicate copies of the bill of entry at Ex.P.47 are marked at Exs.P.48 and P.49. The PW8 has also deposed regarding the duty exemption certificate, Form No.A-1, invoice and packing list at Exs.P.50 to P.53 respectively. The PW8 has deposed that as per the assessment, the value of the imported goods under Ex.P.49 was Rs.23,12,856/-. The documents at Exs.P.47 to P.49 bear his signatures as per Exs.P.47(a) to P.49(a). In the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the PW8 has deposed that he was aware of the Customs Notification No.155/1994 and that under the said Notification, the duty exemption is granted not only to defence organisation but also to the contractors, who are dealing with the defence.
98. Further, the PW8 has admitted that the accused No.1 company is the only procurer on behalf of CABS. It is pertinent to note that in the evidence of cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4, the PW8 has deposed that he took the exemption certificate at Ex.P.50 at its face value and he did not gone in depth with regarding to the genuineness of the said document. Further, the PW8 has volunteered in his evidence in cross examination that the Ex.P.50 was containing the Government seal and other things and as such he did not doubt the genuineness of the said document. The evidence of PW8 in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and the counsel for accused No.4 clearly goes to show that the 58 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 accused persons did not dispute the concerned consignment and the exemption from payment of duty regarding the concerned consignment as per the certificate at Ex.P.50.
99. The CW15 Smt. Annamma is the then Appraiser at Customs House, Cochin. She has been examined as PW9. Her evidence is regarding her order dated 06.10.1994 as per Ex.P.48. She gave the said order to D.P. Singh. Subsequently, the said D.P. Singh marked the said document to the examining Officer Vijayakumar. The said V.K. Vijayakumar is CW17 and he has been examined as PW10. He is the then Examiner of Customs at Cochin and he has deposed that as per the order of PW9, the then Appraiser, he opened and inspected the consignment at Ex.P.48 and the said order was marked by D.P. Singh to him and that based on his order he conducted open inspection of the consigned goods.
100. The said D.P. Singh is CW16 and he has been examined as PW19. The PW19 is the then Customs Appraiser at Customs House, Cochin. The evidence of PW19 is regarding the document at Ex.P.48, which is duplicate copy of the bill of entry bearing No.3351 dated 19.09.1994 at Ex.P.47. The PW19 has also deposed regarding the bill of entry bearing No.287 dated 23.01.1999 at Ex.P.54. The duplicate copy of the said bill of entry at Ex.P.54 is marked at Ex.P.55. The learned counsel for accused persons have not chosen to cross examine PW9, PW10 and PW19. Therefore, the evidence of PW9, PW10 and 59 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 PW19 regarding the bills of entries at Exs.P.47 and P.54 stands not controverted.
101. The CW19 Brahmanandan is the then Assistant Collector of Customs House at Cochin. He has been examined as PW11. As per evidence of PW11, at the relevant time he was handling approval of assessment of bills of entries filed by the Importers on port consignments assessed by the Appraisers. The evidence of PW11 is regarding the bill of entry No.287 dated 23.01.1995 at Ex.P.54. The duplicate and triplicate copies of the bill of entry at Ex.P.54 are marked at Exs.P.55 and P.56 respectively. The PW11 has also deposed regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.57. The duplicate and triplicate copies of the bill of entry at Ex.P.57 are marked at Exs.P.58 and P.59 respectively.
102. Even though the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has subjected PW11 to cross examination, there is absolutely no dispute by the accused No.1 and 2 of the bills of entry at Exs.P.54 and P.57. On the other hand, it is admitted by the accused No.1 and 2 in the evidence of cross examination of PW11 that the goods imported as per those two bills of entries were for CABS and the accused No.1 company is only the procurer for CABS and that the enclosures to Exs.P.54 and P.57 were furnished by the importers/ CABS. 60 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
103. The learned counsel for accused No.4 has cross examined PW11. The relevant portion in the evidence of PW11 in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 reads thus:
"Ex.P.54(b) is signed by one K. Harikumar, whom I do not know. I did not verify Ex.P.54(b) with regard to its genuineness. I had seen the purchase order by the CABS".
Moreover, the relevant portion in the evidence of PW11 in cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that:
"It could be that Ex.P.57(a) signed by A4 is a forged one. I do not know as to whether Ex.P.57(b) is the forged one."
This contention of accused No.4 in the evidence in cross examination of PW11 shows that the accused No.4 admits that there is his signature in the bill of entry at Ex.P.57. Only contention of the accused No.4 is that the said signature in Ex.P.56 is his forged signature. But, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the accused No.4 has not chosen to put forth any case to show that his signature was forged in the bill of entry at Ex.P.57.
104. The CW20 A.C. Joseph is the then Examiner in Customs Department at Cochin. He has been examined as PW12. The evidence of PW12 is regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.54 and he has deposed that his endorsement that he examined goods imported as per bill of entry is in the duplicate copy of Ex.P.54 which is marked at Ex.P.55. The signature of PW12 in Ex.P.55 is marked at Ex.P.55(a). The signature of PW19 in Ex.P.55 is at Ex.P.55(b).
61 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
105. The CW18 Rajendra Kumar is the then Appraiser at Customs House, Cochin. He has been examined as PW47. His evidence is regarding bill of entries at Exs.P.55 and P.56. In the chief examination itself PW47 has deposed that as per the Notification of Government of India as per No.155/94, if any goods are imported for defence purpose, such goods are exempted from customs duty. He verified the bill of entry at Ex.P.55 which is duplicate copy of bill of entry at Ex.P.54 and made endorsement in Ex.P.55 as per Ex.P.55(b).
106. Further, the PW47 has deposed that the bill of entry bearing No.530 dated 09.02.1995 is already marked at Ex.P.57. The document at Ex.P.58 is duplicate copy of the bill of entry at Ex.P.57. The evidence of PW47 is that as per Ex.P.58, as assessed by him, the value of the goods was Rs.51,33,281/- and those goods were given exemption from payment of customs duty. He assessed the value of goods regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.55 was at Rs.48,06,609/-. Even though the learned counsel for accused No.4 has subjected the PW47 to cross examination, there is no dispute by the accused No.4 of the bills of entry at Exs.P.54 and P.57.
107. The CW21 George Joseph is the then examiner in the office of Customs at Cochin during the relevant period. He has been examined as PW45. The evidence of PW45 is regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.57. The said bill was presented in the Customs office at Cochin 62 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 on 09.02.1995 by the concerned party or the importer, CABS, DRDO on account of accused No.1 company through the clearing agent M/s. Transmarine Corporation of Cochin. On seeing the endorsement at Ex.P.58, it is the evidence of PW45 that the concerned endorsement of Appraiser in the said bill of entry was made by Mr. Rajendra Kumar, the then Appraiser, who is examined as PW47. The accused No.1 to 4 have not chosen to cross examine PW45. Therefore, as pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, the evidence of PW8 to PW12, PW19, PW44 and PW47, who are the then officials of Customs House, Cochin, clearly proves the importing of goods in the name of CABS, DRDO through the accused No.1 company as per the concerned bill of entries referred to in the evidence of those witnesses.
108. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, now it is relevant to consider the evidence of concerned officials of Customs House at Bengaluru. The CW29 G.S. Sadashivan is the then Superintendent of Customs at Bangalore. He has been examined as PW21. The evidence of PW21 is that as Superintendent of Customs his duties were verification of bill of entry. The PW21 has identified the bill of entry bearing No.30467 dated 07.09.1994 and it is marked at Ex.P.83. The said bills of entries at Ex.P.83 was enclosed with declaration form, invoice, airway bill, cargo arrival notice and certificate of exemption from customs duty and same are marked at Exs.P.83(a) to P.84(e) respectively. The triplicate and quadruplicate copies of the bill of entry at Ex.P.83 are marked at Exs.P.84 and P.85 respectively. The overseas 63 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 invoice dated 28.02.1995 is identified by PW21 and it is marked at Ex.P.86.
109. The PW21 has deposed that the above said bill of entry at Ex.P.83 was filed for clearance of aluminium extrusion for aircraft parts by Customs House Agent M/s. Venus Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and the importer was DRDO, Bengaluru. The assessable value of the goods was Rs.94,113/-. The PW21 has also deposed that the customs duty was waived by virtue of the exemption certificate at Ex.P.83(e) on account of the concerned Notification. The PW21 has identified another bill of entry dated 01.09.1994 bearing No.029711 at Ex.P.87. The said bill of entry was enclosed with declaration form, copy of invoice, cargo arrival notice, airways bill and duty exemption certificate dated 31.08.1993 and those enclosures are marked at Exs.P.87(a) to P.87(e). The triplicate copy of Ex.P.87 is marked at Ex.P.88.
110. Moreover, the PW21 has deposed that the bills of entry at Exs.P.87 and P.88 were filed by Customs House Agent M/s. Venus Shipping Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of DRDO, Bengaluru on account of South End Technologies, the accused No.1 company. The bill of entry was filed for the clearance of SMA connectors and the assessable value of the goods was Rs.5,04,156/- and duty payable was Rs.21,528/-. The duty was exempted on the basis of exemption certificate at Ex.P.87(e) and Customs Notifications No.155/94 and 206/76. 64 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
111. It is also the evidence of PW21 that he verified the document and signed Ex.P.87. The PW21 has identified xerox copy of the bill of entry bearing No.039929 dated 15.11.1994 and it is marked at Ex.P.89 subject to production of its original. The duty exemption certificate dated 23.11.1994 issued by DRDO is marked at Ex.P.89(a) subject to production of its original. The copy of declaration and triplicate and quadruplicate copies of bill of entry are marked at Exs.P.89(b), P.90 and P.91 respectively. The documents at Exs.P.89 and P.90 were also filed by M/s. Venus Shipping Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of DRDO on account of accused No.1 company. The assessable value of the goods was Rs.92,479/- and the duty exemption was given to the tune of Rs.82,999.90/- based on the duty exemption certificate at Ex.P.89(a) and the Notification No.155/94.
112. It is true that in the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the PW21 has deposed that under Exs.P.83, P.87 and P.89 the DRDO is importer and the accused No.1 company is procuring agent. The learned counsel for accused No.4 has subjected PW21 to cross examination. In the said cross examination there is no dispute that the goods were imported as per the bills of entry at Exs.P.83, P.87 and P.89. It is true that the prosecution has not chosen to produce original of the bill of entry at Ex.P.89 and its enclosures at Exs.P.89(a) and P.89(b). However, the evidence of PW21 in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 does not dispute the concerned consignment as per the above said bills of entry and that 65 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 the duty exemptions was given as per the concerned duty exemption certificates on such consignments.
113. The CW30 H. Ramakrishna is the then Superintendent of Customs at Bengaluru at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW22. The evidence of PW22 is regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.92. The enclosures of Ex.P.92 are produced and marked at Exs.P.92(a) to P.92(f). The document at Ex.P.92(f) is duty exemption certificate. The PW22 is also deposed regarding triplicate copy of bill of entry dated 23.03.1994 and it is marked at Ex.P.94. The enclosures to Ex.P.94 are produced and marked at Exs.P.94(a) to P.94(d). The Ex.P.94(a) is the duty exemption certificate in respect of the bill of entry at Ex.P.94. The assessable value of the goods regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.92 was Rs.12,583/- and the customs duty payable was Rs.10,696/-. The assessable value of the goods in respect of the bill of entry at Ex.P.94 was Rs.5,716/- and the customs duty payable was Rs.6,545/-. The assessable value of goods regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.41 is Rs.4,05,948/- and the customs duty was Rs.2,63,866/-.
114. Hence, the evidence of PW22 also shows that on the basis of the concerned duty exemption certificates the customs duty payable on the goods regarding the bills of entry at Exs.P.92, P.94 and P.41 was exempted. In the evidence in cross examination by the counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the PW22 has admitted that since the DRDO was the importer, the customs duty exemption entitlement certificates were 66 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 issued in the case of three bills of entry mentioned by him. Further, in the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 the PW22 has admitted that he does not know the accused No.4 personally and he does not remember whether he had met the accused No.4 on the dates mentioned in the documents at Exs.P.41(e), P.94(a) and P.92(f), which are the concerned duty exemption certificates.
115. However, the learned counsel for accused No.4 has tried to make out the case in the evidence in cross examination of PW22 that the signatures of accused No.4 found in Exs.P.41(e), P.94(a) and P.92(f) are forged signatures. But there is absolutely no material forthcoming from the accused No.4 to show whether he took any steps against any person, if at all his signatures found in the duty exemption certificates at Exs.P.41(e), P.94(a) and P.92(f) are his forged signatures. Therefore, the evidence of PW22 clearly proves the consignments of goods as per the bills of entry at Exs.P.41, P.94 and P.92 in the name of DRDO through the accused No.1 company.
116. The CW31 N. Srinivasan is the then Superintendent of Customs in Bengaluru at the relevant period. He has been examined as PW23. As per the evidence of PW23, he was in charge of scrutinizing bills of entries filed by the Government Departments and other public funded research institutes. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the PW23 has identified the bills of entry at Exs.P.95, P.96, P.98 and P.101 regarding consignment of goods by DRDO through the accused No.1 67 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 company. The PW23 in his evidence has deposed that the duty exemption was given regarding the import of goods as per the said bills of entries. The assessable value of the concerned goods and the duty amounts were also deposed by the PW23 regarding the bills of entry at Exs.P.95, P.96, P.98 and P.101.
117. In the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 it is admitted by PW23 that under Exs.P.95, P.96, P.98 and P.101 the importer was CABS, DRDO and the accused No.1 company is mentioned as procuring agent. In the evidence of PW23 in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 the case of the accused No.4 is that his signatures were forged in the concerned documents and enclosures of the documents at Exs.P.95 and P.101.
118. The CW33 M. Venkatarama Reddy is the then Commissioner of Customs at Bengaluru and he has been examined as PW24. The evidence of PW24 is regarding the document at Ex.P.40. He has deposed that the said letter was brought to him personally by a Naval uniformed person saying that he was coming from Defence establishment and the said person told him that he had imported some goods for Defence project and that he wanted clearance on priority basis and the said person claimed exemption from customs duty and hence, the PW24 made endorsement in Ex.P.40 as 'may be released to DRDO directly by extending the benefit pf exemption if otherwise in 68 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 order'. The PW24 has identified the accused No.4 as the person who brought the letter at Ex.P.40 to him.
119. In the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 the PW24 has deposed that the original of Ex.P.40 was brought to him by the accused No.4 on 07.04.1994 and 3 bills of entries are referred to in Ex.P.40. It is true that the PW24 has deposed in his evidence in cross examination that he did not verify regarding the genuineness of three bills of entry mentioned in Ex.P.40. However, as argued by the learned Prosecutor, the evidence of PW24 clearly goes to show that the accused No.4 was involved in claiming duty exemption regarding the concerned items imported in the name of CABS, DRDO through the accused No.1 company, who is the procurer for the importer DRDO.
120. The CW28 V. Padmanabhan is the then Assistant Collector of Customs at Bengaluru. He has been examined as PW54. His evidence is regarding the bills of entry at Exs.P.42, P.87 and P.95. Regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.87, the evidence of PW54 is that the said bill of entry was filed by the accused No.1 company on behalf of DRDO and Venus Shipping Pvt. Ltd. The goods covered in the said bill of entry was of the value of Rs.5,04,156/- and according to the Notification No.155/94, those goods were exempted from payment of customs duty.
69 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
121. It is also the evidence of PW54 that the importer gave duty exemption certificate and xerox copy of the said certificate is marked at Ex.P.250 subject to keeping open its admissibility and evidentiary value. Further, the PW54 has deposed that the bill of entry dated 24.11.1994 at Ex.P.95 was filed by the accused No.1 company through M/s. Venus Shipping Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of DRDO for importing aircrafts spare parts of the value of Rs.2,77,899/-. The duty exemption certificate was issued regarding the same and the xerox copy of which is marked at Ex.P.95(b). The bill of entry dated 15.11.1994 at Ex.P.42 and it was also filed by the accused No.1 company through M/s. Venus shipping Pvt Ltd. on behalf of DRDO for importing adhesive transpiration of the value of Rs.8,57,918/- and the customs duty was exempted as per the certificate at Ex.P.44.
122. The PW54 has deposed regarding the document at Ex.P.42 that it was endorsed by mentioning the bond No.S/6/12/95/BACC/6-1- 95, which indicates that the clearance was given after resorting to provisional assessment. It is very pertinent to note that the relevant portion in the evidence in chief examination of PW54 reads thus:
"The person who met me in my office and requested for clearing goods, was accused No.4 whom I identify now in the open Court, Since A-4 was wearing the uniform of the Navy, I was able to identify him as representative from DRDO".
The PW54 has also deposed regarding the bills of entry at Exs.P.90 and P.98, which were filed by the accused No.1 company on behalf of DRDO through M/s. Venus Shipping Pvt Ltd., importing aircrafts parts of 70 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 the value of Rs.92,479/- and the connector and Beryllium copper bar of the value of Rs.2,62,981/- and the duty exemption was given as per the concerned exemption certificates. The duty exemption certificate regarding bill of entry at Ex.P.98 is marked at Ex.P.98(a). The evidence of PW54 is that the accused No.4 signed the said certificate.
123. Further, the evidence of PW54 is regarding the bill of entry dated 28.09.1994 at Ex.P.101, which was also issued by the accused No.1 company on behalf of DRDO through M/s. Venus Shipping Pvt Ltd. for importing goods such as 'release film plain' for the value of Rs.2,08,111/- and the duty exemption was claimed as per the certificate at Ex.P.101(b). The said certificate was given by the accused No.4 on 26.09.1994. The amount of Rs.1,35,272/- was given exemption towards duty for those goods. It is true that the Ex.P.250 is xerox copy of the certificate. In the evidence in cross examination by the counsel for accused No.4 the PW54 has deposed that he was not in a position to confirm whether the original of Ex.P.250 was available in Air Cargo office or elsewhere. The PW54 has also deposed in his evidence in cross examination by the counsel for accused No.4 that the document at Ex.P.108 was not executed before him.
124. Further, the PW54 has clearly stated that the accused No.4 Hari Kumar met him in his office 2 or 3 days prior to 06.01.1995, but he did not record any statement of accused No.4 on that day. The entire evidence of PW54 in cross examination by the learned counsel for 71 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 accused No.4 clearly goes to show that the accused No.4 does not dispute the importing of goods in the name of DRDO as per the concerned bills of entry and there was claim for exemption of duty payable on such imported goods on the basis of the concerned duty exemption certificates, which are allegedly issued by the accused No.4.
125. It is true that the prosecution has not chosen to produce original copy of the document at Ex.P.250, even though admissibility and evidential value of the said document are kept open while marking the said document. However, as discussed herein above, there is no dispute by the accused No.4 of the concerned bills of entry mentioned by the PW54 in his evidence and that there was duty exemption given regarding the goods imported as per the said bills of entry. Hence, even though the original of the document at Ex.P.250 is not produced by the prosecution, it does not make the entire evidence of PW54 disbelievable regarding the case of prosecution alleged against the accused persons.
126. The CW32 Smt. Hemavathi is the then Assistant Collector of Customs at Bengaluru. She has been examined as PW6. As per the evidence of PW6, at the relevant time she was also in charge of Cargo clearance, which was imported into the country. The evidence of PW6 is regarding the bill of entry at Ex.P.38. The duplicate copy of Ex.P.38 is marked at Ex.P.39. The PW6 has clearly deposed that the bills of entry at Exs.P.38 and P.39 were submitted by M/s. Venus Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 72 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 on behalf of the importer DRDO on account of the accused No.1 company and the letter dated 06.04.1994 was given by CABS for clearance of goods. The said letter is at Ex.P.40 and it was signed by the accused No.4. The letter at Ex.P.40 was given for clearance of consignment mentioned in the bill of entry at Ex.P.38.
127. Further, the PW6 has identified xerox copy of the original of Exs.P.38 and P.39 and it is marked at Ex.P.41. The signature of PW6 in Ex.P.41 is marked at Ex.P.41(a). The PW6 has clearly deposed that the accused No.4 is the person appeared before her for the purpose of clearance of the goods imported as per the above said bill of entry. It is true that in the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the PW6 has deposed that:
"As per Ex.P.38, it appears that the benefit of duty exemption has been given to DRDO. The Assistant Collector of Customs only signs on the original bill, not on duplicate or triplicate".
In the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 also, the PW6 has deposed that as Ex.P.40 is not the original, it does not bear her signature for having seen and that she would be put her initial for having seen the original and she cannot say whether Ex.P.40 was marked to her or to some other Assistant Collector. The PW6 has also deposed in her evidence in cross examination that she is not familiar with the signature of the officials, who used to come for the clearance on behalf of DRDO. 73 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
128. The CW27 C.D. Harish is the then Superintendent (Customs) in Bengaluru at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW7. The PW7 has identified the triplicate copy of bill of entry dated 05.11.1994. It is marked at Ex.P.42. For having verified the said bill of entry the PW7 put his signature and his signature in Ex.P.42 is marked at Ex.P.42(a). The PW7 has also identified quadruplicate Exchange Control copy of Ex.P.42 and it is marked at Ex.P.43. The signature of PW7 in Ex.P.43 is marked at Ex.P.43(a). The PW7 has clearly deposed that the documents at Exs.P.42 and P.43 were submitted by M/s. Venus Shipping Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of DRDO in the account of accused No.1 company and that the goods mentioned in Ex.P.42 were exempted from duty under the Customs Notification No.155/94.
129. It is also the evidence of PW7 that the duty exemption was given to the tune of Rs.9,81,629/- and on the occasion of getting the exemption the accused No.4 appeared before him for claiming the exemption and that the accused No.4 gave exemption certificate as per Ex.P.44 along with the document at Ex.P.42. The PW7 has identified the signature of accused No.4 in the certificate at Ex.P.44 and the said signature of accused No.4 is marked at Ex.P.44(a). The bills of invoices regarding Exs.P.42 and P.43 are identified by PW7 and same are marked at Exs.P.45 and P.46 respectively. In the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 the PW7 has admitted that the accused No.1 company is the agent of DRDO only for importing the cargo on behalf of DRDO.
74 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
130. It is true that the learned counsel for accused No.4 has subjected the PW7 to cross examination, wherein the PW7 has deposed that he ascertained from DRDO person, who brought the bill of entry, to the effect that the concerned consignment belonged to DRDO. Hence, in the evidence of PW7 in cross examination the accused No.4 has tried to make out the case that the concerned consignment, which was imported belonged to DRDO. But the case of prosecution is that the accused No.2 to 4 colluded together and forged concerned documents as if those documents were issued on behalf of DRDO. Therefore, any of the materials forthcoming in the evidence of PW7 in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 does not make the case of prosecution alleged against the accused No.4 disbelievable regarding the importing of consignments as per the concerned bills of entry.
131. As argued by the learned Prosecutor, the witnesses PW15, PW18 and PW19 have deposed about the procedure regarding assessment of bills of entry and clearance of consignments. The CW6 Ajay Kumar is the then Appraiser in Customs House, Chennai at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW15. In the evidence in chief examination the PW15 has deposed that the procedure regarding assessment of bill of entry in respect of clearance of imported consignments begin with import noting in the import section, wherein the documents were submitted by the Customs House Agent, who was 75 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 nominated or authorised by the Importer. The import noting section would assign the bill of entry number and that after assignment of bill of entry number the bill of entry would be forwarded to assessing group and thereafter the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Group-III and IV would allocate the bill of entry to the respective Appraiser. Then the Appraiser would check the description with respect to the import invoice, bill of lading and other connected documents and the bill would be assessed according to the documents submitted by the Custom House Agent.
132. It is also the evidence of PW15 that subsequently the bill of entry would be forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs for his perusal and approval and thereafter, the bill would go for Concurrent Audit to be audited by another Appraiser and then the Importer would pay the duty if the duty was payable and thereafter, the bill of entry would go to Appraising Main Section (AMS) for Foreign Free Number (FF No.). Such number would be assigned in cases where the duty was zero and then the bill of entry would go for inspection or examination and that after inspection of goods, the Docks Officer would give pass out order and hence, the goods would be cleared.
133. Further, it is the evidence of PW15 that in case of import made by Government Departments, the inspection would be waived. The PW15 has deposed regarding the original bill entry at Ex.P.24, which was submitted by Customs House Agent, Jeena & Co. on behalf 76 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 of CABS, DRDO and the accused No.1 company for clearance of aluminium plates 20 in numbers. The Assessable value of those goods was Rs.13,21,184/-. The duty exemption was given as per the Notification No.155/94. Moreover, the PW15 has deposed that the accused No.4 gave exemption certificate as per Ex.P.25 for duty exemption on the above said consignment and he made endorsement on Ex.P.25 stating that 'fully utilised'. The said endorsement is marked at Ex.P.25(a). The signature of PW15 in Ex.P.25 is marked at Ex.P.25(b).
134. Moreover, the PW15 verified the invoice at Ex.P.28, which was raised in favour of CABS, DRDO and the accused No.1 company and the duty exemption of Rs.11,85,763/- was given based on the certificate at Ex.P.25. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for accused No.3 have not chosen to cross examine PW15. It is true that the learned counsel for accused No.4 has subjected the PW15 to cross examination. But there is absolutely no dispute of the consignment as per the bill of entry at Ex.P.24 and that the duty exemption was given regarding the said consignment as per the certificate at Ex.P.25.
135. Moreover, the procedure regarding assessment of bill of entry and clearing of consignment stated by the PW15 in his chief examination is not disputed by the accused No.4 in his evidence in cross examination. On the other hand, the only case of the accused 77 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 No.4 in the evidence of PW15 in cross examination is that the signature found in Ex.P.24 as the competent Authority was the forged signature. Further, the suggestion of the learned counsel for accused No.4 that it was the basic duty of PW15 to find out whether the signatory of Ex.P.25 is competent Authority to sign, is not agreed by PW15. Therefore, in the evidence of PW15 the accused No.4 has failed to make out any ground to show that the signatures of competent Authority found in Exs.P.24 and P.25 were forged to show as if those signatures are of the accused No.4.
136. The CW10 Suresh is the Proprietor of Raghavendra Shipping and Clearing Agencies, Chennai. He worked as Manager in Jeena & Co., Chennai at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW18. The evidence of PW18 is regarding bills of entry at Exs.P.7 and P.24 and the corresponding lorry receipts at Exs.P.33 and P.36 respectively. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the evidence of PW18 is regarding procedure for processing and payment of customs duty. It is true that the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for accused No.4 have subjected PW18 to cross examination. But there is absolutely no material forthcoming in the evidence in cross examination of PW18 to make his evidence disbelievable regarding the processing and payment of customs duty and also regarding bills of entry at Exs.P.7 and P.24 and corresponding lorry receipts at Exs.P.33 and P.36.
78 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
137. The CW16 Devendra Pratap Singh is the then Customs Appraiser at Cochin and he has been examined as PW19. The evidence of PW19 is regarding the procedure for clearing of cargo based on duty exemption certificate. The evidence of PW18 and PW19 is already discussed herein above while discussing the bills of entry at Exs.P.24, P.48 and P.54. The learned counsel for any of the accused persons has not chosen to cross examine PW19. Hence, there is absolutely no dispute regarding procedure regarding assessment of bill of entries, clearance of imported consignments, processing and payment of customs duty and also regarding clearance of cargo based on duty exemption certificate deposed in the evidence of the concerned witnesses forthcoming on record.
138. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, it is very much pertinent to note that the concerned officials of Customs and also Import Agents have identified the accused No.4 as the person who represented CABS, DRDO for clearing the concerned consignments seeking exemption from payment of customs duty. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the PW6 Smt. Hemavathi, the then Assistant Collector (Customs), Bengaluru, in her evidence in chief examination has deposed that the accused No.4 appeared before her for the purpose of clearance. The PW7 C.D. Harish, the then Superintendent (Customs) Bengaluru, has also deposed in his chief examination that the accused No.4 appeared before him for clearing exemption from 79 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 customs duty and the exemption certificate at Ex.P.44 bears the signature of accused No.4 as per Ex.P.44(a).
139. The PW24 M. Venkatarama Reddy is the then Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru at the relevant time and he deposed regarding the certificate at Ex.P.40. The PW24 has clearly deposed that the accused No.4 is the person who brought Ex.P.40 for clearance for claiming the exemption from customs duty. The PW30 V. Ravi Kumar, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Venus Shipping Pvt. Ltd., has also deposed in his evidence that the official of CABS, who met CW28 Mr. Padmanabhan (who has been examined as PW54) on the relevant occasion was the accused No.4 and the accused No.4 requested PW54 Mr. Padmanabhan to take the undertaking from CABS and release the consignment duty free.
140. The PW54 V. Padmanabhan, the then Assistant Collector of Customs at Bengaluru, has also deposed in his evidence that the person who met him in his office and requested for clearing goods was the accused No.4. Therefore, the evidence of the concerned witnesses PW6, PW7, PW24, PW30 and PW54 clearly goes to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that there was involvement of the accused No.4 in clearing the concerned consignments with exemption of customs duty payable on such consignments. There is no material forthcoming in the evidence in cross examination of PW54 to make his evidence disbelievable.
80 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
141. The CW46 S. Ramanathan is the then Scientist-D working in CABS during the relevant period. The CW46 is a crucial witness regarding the case of prosecution and he had been examined as PW28. The testimony of PW28 in his chief examination is that the accused No.3 and 4 were his colleagues in CABS. The PW28 has deposed that CW2 Dr. K. Ramachand (PW38), the then Director of CABS directed him and also Group Captain P.S. Mathur, Scientist-E (PW39) and Wing Commander R. Meghanath, Scientist-E to search the table drawer of the accused No.3 on the next day of the arrest of accused No.3 in 1995 and accordingly, they searched the table drawer in the place where accused No.3 was working and found 30 documents, number of rubber stamps and a floppy.
142. It is also the evidence of PW28 that they took those 30 documents, rubber stamps and floppy and produced them before CW37 Mr. Tamil Mani (PW35), who was the then Addl. Director of CABS. The PW28 has also deposed in his evidence that at that time he prepared a list of documents and that the rubber stamps and floppy were handed over to CW37 (PW35) without preparing any list. The list of 30 documents prepared by them is identified by PW28 and it is marked at Ex.P.115. The signature of PW28 in Ex.P.115 is marked at Ex.P.115(a). The Group Captain Mathur (PW39) and Wing Commander Meghanath also signed the said document and their signatures are identified by PW28 and they are marked at Exs.P.115(b) and P.115(c) respectively. 81 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
143. The evidence of PW28 in chief examination is also that a letter dated 31.08.1983 and the procurement contract No.94/2 dated 17.10.1994 with appendix, delivery challan dated 18.10.1993 as per Exs.P.116 , P.117 and P.109 respectively were also found in drawer of the accused No.3 at the time of such search. Moreover, the PW28 has deposed that they found the invoice No.155/93, 12 invoices with their duplicate and copy of indemnity bond dated 23.05.1994 in the drawer of accused No.3 and the said invoice No.155/93 and 12 invoices with their duplicate are marked at Exs.P.118 and P.119 respectively.
144. However, copy of the indemnity bond is not available in the record. But the PW28 has clearly deposed that the original of the said indemnity bond is the document, which has been already marked as Ex.D.1. It is also the evidence of PW28 in chief examination that the quotation No.AD/CABS/123/93 dated 17.12.1993 of South End Technologies (the accused No.1 company), the letter dated 12.05.1994 from the accused No.1 company, delivery challan dated 05.11.1993, quotation dated 10.03.1994 and contingent bills with advise and inspection note containing 11 sheets in total and greeting cards at Exs.P.110, P.111, P.120 to P.123 respectively were also found in drawer of the accused No.3.
145. Further, the quotation reference ABAV/CABS/103/93-B dated 02.08.1994 at Ex.P.112 and one packing list dated 14.07.1994 at 82 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Ex.P.124 were found in the table drawer of accused No.3. The floppy which was found in the table drawer of accused No.3 is identified by the PW28 and the said floppy with covering box is marked at MO1. Therefore, the evidence of PW28 is regarding documents and floppy which were found in the table drawer of the accused No.3 and seized as per the list at Ex.P.115. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has cross examined PW28 in which it is deposed by PW28 that the list at Ex.P.115 was prepared at the time when they took the documents from the table drawers of accused No.3.
146. Moreover, it is admitted by PW28 that the document at Ex.P.116 is addressed to the Director, CABS by the South End Technologies (the accused No.1 company). It is absolutely not the case of accused No.1 and 2 that no such documents and floppy were seized from the drawer of the accused No.3 by the PW28. It is very interesting to note that the learned counsel for accused No.3 has adopted the cross examination done by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2. The learned counsel for accused No.3 has subjected PW28 to cross examination. However, except the suggestion that no documents and floppy were recovered from the table drawer of accused No.3, there is absolutely no dispute by the accused No.3 regarding seizure of the documents as per the list of documents at Ex.P.115 and also seizure of the floppy at MO1.
83 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
147. The above said P.S. Mathur referred to by PW28 in his evidence has been examined as PW39. The PW39 has deposed that he is the then Scientist in CABS, Bengaluru at the relevant time and the accused No.3 was running the company by name South End Technology (the accused No.1 company) and it was the accused No.2 who supplied them the material required to their organisation and the said materials was called 'silicon fluid'. The accused No.2 secured the said materials by importing from outside country. It is also the evidence of PW39 that around 1992-93 onwards his organisation had taken up the project work of proto type development of data link phase-I test and integration facility and that when he retired in the year 2003 the said project was still going one and for the data link development and phase- I project, it was sub-contracted to the defence electronic application laboratory at Deharadun and the contract work relating to that project was not at all entrusted to the accused No.1 company of the accused No.2 at any time.
148. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 subjected PW39 to cross examination, wherein the case of the accused No.1 and 2 is that the orders were placed for supply of materials required to the project with the accused No.1 company and such suggestion is denied by PW39 as false. The learned counsel for accused No.3 has not chosen to cross examine PW39. However, in the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4, the PW39 has deposed that it is only the Director who was authorised to issue 84 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 exemption certificate pertaining to customs duty. However, the PW39 has denied that the silicon material was required for strip line antenna. But he has admitted that around the years 1992 to 1995, his organisation had taken up the project relating to strip line antenna.
149. The CW47 Chandra Prakash is the then Deputy Director, Budget, Finance and Account section in DRDO at the relevant time. He has been examined as PW29. The evidence of PW29 is that he was looking after budget and expenditure of DRDO Laboratories all over the country and when they received request for additional allotment of funds from any of DRDO Labs, the claim should be supported by documents to substantiate the additional requirement. It is also the evidence of PW29 that during the financial year 1995-96 the total allocation for purchase of materials for CABS, DRDO, Bengaluru was less than Rs.7 crore and that in the year 1995 they did not receive any request from CABS, DRDO, Bengaluru for sanction of additional fund of Rs.93 crore.
150. The CW39 H.R. Ramesh Kumar was working as Accountant in CABS, DRDO, Bengaluru and he has been examined as PW31. As per the evidence of PW31, his duty was to give financial advice to the Directors, settlement of audit objections and preparation of budget etc. He was also custodian of cheque books and cash chest. The debit voucher register maintained by his office for issuance of cheques is identified by PW31 and it is marked at Ex.P.125. The entries in the said 85 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 register for issuance of cheques for the period from 28.02.1995 to 04.04.1995 are reflected in page Nos.64 to 67 and it is relevant pages are marked at Exs.P.125(a) to P.125(d).
151. It is the evidence of PW31 that on 21.03.1995 as usual he came for duty to his office and as soon as he came to his office he took the cheque book and D.V. register at Ex.P.125 and connected files from the cash chest and kept them in his table drawer. The said drawer was in open condition. At that time he was called by his senior officer Satyanarayana (PW49) for some official work and hence, he went to the chamber of the said Satyanarayana and after 5 or 10 minutes when he returned to his seat and checked the cheque book kept by him in open drawer of his table, he noticed that the last two cheque leaves bearing No.09079 and 090800 were found missing in the cheque book. Immediately he reported the same to his senior Accounts Officer Satyanarayana (PW49) and thereafter both of them (PW31 and PW49) went to the Director Dr. K. Ramachand (PW38) and reported missing of the said cheques. Thereafter, he along with PW49 (Satyanarayana) went to SBI, ADE branch, and gave letter to the Branch Manager to stop payment on missing cheques. The said missing cheque bearing No.090800 is at Ex.P.107.
152. It is also deposed by PW31 that on 05.04.1995 they surrendered the remaining 24 cheques to the Bank and asked the Bank to close the account and thereafter those cheques were returned along 86 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 with the letter of Additional Director to close the account and open new account. The said letter is marked at Ex.P.118. Except the learned counsel for accused No.3, the counsel for other accused persons have not chosen to cross examine PW31. Moreover, in the evidence of PW31 in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.3 the case of accused No.3 is that the maximum balance in the concerned account is less than Rs.50,000/- and generally his staff would be aware of that fact. There is no denial by the accused No.3 of the missing of 2 cheques from the drawer of PW31 on the relevant day, as deposed by the witness PW31.
153. The above referred R. Satyanarayana, the then Accounts Officer in CABS of DRDO at the relevant time has been examined as PW49. His evidence is that he was the drawing disbursing officer relating to salary and allowances of the staff from Class-IV to the Director of his institution. He was also entitled to maintain imprest amount upto the limit of Rs.50,000/-, sanctioned by the controller of defence accounts and as a senior accounts officer, he was entitled to make payment upto Rs.2,000/- only as procurement of urgent requirement sanctioned by the director.
154. It is also the evidence of PW49 that he was not at all entitled to enter into any agreement with regard to procurement of any material. It was either the Director or the Senior Accounts Officer who was entitled to operate the Bank account of his institution with SBI, ADE 87 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 branch and hence, the specimen signatures of the Accounts Officer as well as the Director were given to the said Bank and that the maximum amount being withdrawn from that account under the salary head or any other head was Rs.10,00,000/- per month.
155. The PW49 has identified the procurement agreement dated 17.10.1994 at Ex.P.178 and that in the page No.3 of the said agreement there is his signature above the rubber stamp designation and his name, but the said signature is not his signature. The PW49 has deposed that on 21.03.1995 his Accountant cum Cashier by name Mr. Ramesh Kumar (PW31) reported to him that two cheque leaves of his office relating to SBI, ADE branch Bank account were found missing and thereafter the information was given in writing to the said Bank indicating not to honour the said two cheques. The said intimation in writing is at Ex.P.113.
156. Moreover, the PW49 has identified the documents at Ex.P.177 as one of the two missing cheques and the said cheque is dated 21.08.1995 for the sum of Rs.93,00,00,000/-. The signature found in the said cheque as the drawer of the cheque is not his signature and drawee of the said cheque at Ex.P.177 is South End Technology, the accused No.1 company. The PW49 has also identified the letter dated 04.04.1995 purported to be addressed to the accused No.1 company by his department with his name and designation. The said letter is marked at Ex.P.180. The PW49 has clearly deposed that the signature found in 88 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 the letter at Ex.P.180 in his name is not his signature. Further, the xerox copy of the 2 receipts dated 02.12.1994 and 11/ 15.02.1995 are got marked in the evidence of PW49 at Exs.P.217 and P.218 respectively subject to its admissibility. The receipts at Exs.P.217 and P.218 are for the amounts of Rs.3,05,000/- and Rs.4,80,000/- respectively.
157. Moreover, the PW49 has deposed that the accused No.3 and 4 were his colleagues working in the same office and he know the signatures of both the accused No.3 and 4 and he can identify the writing of accused No.3. The xerox copies of the documents are marked at Exs.P.219 to P.238 subject to objection by the accused persons regarding admissibility of those documents. The PW49 has clearly stated that the signature found in receipt at Ex.P.179 above his name and rubber stamp designation is not his signature. Subsequently, the Cubbon Park Police obtained his specimen signature as per Ex.P.182. The document at Ex.P.184 is the Circular dated 06.03.1995 and the document at Ex.P.186 is Form No.1 of CCS (leave rules) of his office. The signature of PW49 in Exs.P.184 and P.186 are marked at Exs.P.184(a) and P.186(a) respectively.
158. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has not chosen to cross examine PW49. However, the evidence of PW49 in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.3 is mere denial of the handwritings in the documents at Exs.P.219 to P.238 are of accused No.3. It is true that regarding the concerned cheque there was 89 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 separate case in Spl.CC. No.163/2000 on the file of this Court against the accused No.3 and other accused persons and the said case already ended in acquittal of accused No.3 and other accused persons. Therefore, the evidence of PW49 regarding the cheques at Ex.P.177 does not stand for consideration.
159. However, regarding other documents referred to by PW49 in his evidence there is absolutely no material forthcoming from the accused No.3 and 4 to make the evidence of PW48 dis-believable. In the evidence of PW49 in cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 the case of the accused No.4 is that the documents at Exs.P.219 to P.238 are repeat orders of his office. The accused No.4 does not deny existence of those documents at Exs.P.219 to P.238. Hence, the totality of evidence of PW28, PW29, PW30, PW39 and PW49, who are officials of CABS clearly goes to show the part allegedly played by the accused No.3 and 4 in getting the concerned documents forged.
160. The CW24 R. Naveenchandra Prabhu is the then Branch Manager of Triseva Parivahan Services Ltd. at Cochin. He has been examined as PW14. The evidence of PW14 is that his company is a transporting company booking consignments for transport to all over India. He has deposed regarding the Consignment Note No.23012 dated 07.10.1994, Consignment Note No.23013 dated 07.10.1994 and Consignment Note No.23014 dated 10.10.1994 at Exs.P.80 to P.82 90 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 respectively. The PW14 has also deposed that the Consignment Notes at Exs.P.80 and P.81 were prepared by one Sri. P. Narayanan Kutty, Loading Supervisor of his Branch and Consignment Note at Ex.P.82 was prepared by one Sri. P.V. Rajesh, Loading Supervisor. Those consignments notes were prepared on the request of Jeena & Co., Cochin and the goods as per those consignment notes were transported by the concerned lorries and delivered to the accused No.1 company at Bengaluru.
161. The evidence of PW14 is also regarding transportation charges in respect of those consignment note. It is true that the PW14 has been subjected to cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2, wherein the PW14 has deposed that he had not accompanied the vehicles, by which the goods as per the consignments were transported. Further, the evidence of PW14 in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that he did not have personal knowledge about the actual delivery of the consignments. The accused No.3 has not chosen to cross examine PW14. Hence, from the evidence of PW14 it is clear that there is no dispute by the accused persons regarding delivery of goods to the accused No.1 company at Bengaluru as per the consignment under consignment notes at Exs.P.80 to P.82.
162. The CW23 Abbas was doing lorry broker business at the relevant time in the name and style as Island Lorry Transport 91 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Corporation at Cochin. He has been examined as PW34. The evidence of PW34 is regarding carbon copies of goods consignment notes at Exs.P.140 to P.145. The PW34 has clearly deposed that those consignment Notes at Exs.P.140 to P.145 were prepared by him on 31.08.1996 for transporting goods from Cochin to Bengaluru and M/s. Jeena & Co. was the consignor of the goods. The consignee was CABS account of accused No.1 company and the consignments were transported through the concerned lorries. It is true that in the chief examination itself the PW34 has deposed that in the consignment notes at Exs.P.140 and P.141 the name of the consignee is mentioned as West End Technology, Bengaluru instead of South End Technology, Bengaluru (the accused No.1 company) due to oversight.
163. The PW34 has identified copies of the goods consignment notes pertaining to Nos.530 to 535 and same are marked at Exs.P.151 to P.156 respectively. Even though the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has subjected PW34 to cross examination, there is no denial by the accused No.1 and 2 of the consignment of goods as per the consignment notes at Exs.P.140 to P.145 and transportation of the concerned goods to the accused No.1 company and that the consignee as per those consignment notes is CABS.
164. It is true that in the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 the PW34 has deposed that he did not know as to where exactly the goods were delivered at Bengaluru. 92 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 But when there is documentary evidence forthcoming on record to show that consignor of the goods as per the concerned consignment notes was M/s. Jeena & Co. and consignee was CABS accounts of the accused No.1 company, it cannot be believable that the goods were not delivered to the accused No.1 company in respect of the concerned consignment Notes at Exs.P.140 to P.145. Therefore, the evidence of PW14 and PW34 clearly goes to show that the concerned goods were delivered to the accused No.1 company under the concerned consignments in which the name of the consignee is CABS, DRDO.
165. The CW48 S. Venu who is alleged to have been doing real estate business in the name and style of Vinayas Construction Private Ltd. at Bengaluru. He has been examined as PW48. In the evidence in chief examination the PW48 has deposed that the accused No.3 is related to his paternal uncle and in the year 1995 the accused No.3 and his family paid him Rs.1,11,000/- by cash as well as through cheque. The PW48 has identified the letter at Ex.P.216, which was allegedly written by him addressed to Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru regarding payment of the said amount of Rs.1,11,000/- by the accused No.3.
166. The PW48 has further deposed that he handed over the letter at Ex.P.216 to the Inspector of Police along with cash amount and for having received the said amount the Inspector of Police made endorsement on the copy as well as on the original of Ex.P.216. The 93 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 endorsement with signature of the Inspector is marked at Ex.P.216(b). Except denial by the learned counsel for accused No.3 in the evidence in cross examination of PW38 of the payment of the said amount of Rs.1,11,000/- by the accused No.3 to PW48, there is absolutely no material forthcoming from the accused No.3 to falsify the evidence of PW48 regarding the letter at Ex.P.216.
167. Moreover, even if the document at Ex.P.216 is considered as not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, the offences charged against the accused No.3 and 4 in the case on hand is based on other documentary evidence forthcoming on record. Therefore, even if the evidence of PW48 and the document at Ex.P.216 are discarded as not believable, it does not falsify other evidence available on record to make out the case charged against the accused persons.
168. The CW34 G. Murthy is the then Marketing Manager in the accused No.1 company. He has been examined as PW25. The evidence of PW25 is that during 1994 the accused No.1 company had imported goods from Singapore Aerospace, Singapore via Cochin, Chennai and Bengaluru and that in Cochin and Chennai, M/s. Jeena & Co. was their Customs House Agent and in Bengaluru Venus Shipping Pvt. Ltd. was their Customs House Agent. The accused No.1 company had given him Airway bills, Customs clearance documents such as duty exemption certificate, airway bill, invoice etc. and he gave such 94 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 documents to the concerned Customs House Agent. The evidence of PW25 clearly shows the alleged importing of materials through the accused No.1 company in the name of CABS, DRDO.
169. The evidence of PW25 is regarding the documents at Exs.P.15 to P.19, P.21 to P.23, P.25 to P.31 and P.34 and also regarding the documents at Exs.P.50, P.52 to P.55 and P.57. As per the evidence of PW25, the documents at Exs.P.15 to P.19, P.21 to P.23, P.25 to P.31 and P.34 were given to him by the accused No.2 and the document at Ex.P.50 was given to him by CABS and he handed over those documents to the concerned Customs House Agent. The PW25 has also deposed regarding documents at Exs.P.41, P.44 to P.46, P.95, P.98, P.101, P.83, P.86, P.87, P.89, P.92, and P.94.
170. Further, the PW25 has deposed in his evidence in chief examination that the goods imported through Cochin were collected and kept in the godown of accused No.1 company at K.R.Purm, Bengaluru. The Customs said that the goods imported were consumable goods and therefore, it could be cleared and hence, immediately he informed the accused No.2 and in turn the accused No.2 informed the CABS. Ultimately the officials from CABS met Commissioner of Customs and thereafter the goods were cleared and after the customs clearance he took delivery of the goods from Customs and delivered the same to CABS. It is also the evidence of PW25 that when he went to CABS, the accused No.3 and 4 were there and they told him that they were shifting 95 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 the establishment from ADE campus to Belur campus and they did not accept the consignment. He informed the same to the accused No.2 and the accused No.2 asked him to bring the goods to their godown and once the shifting was over they would deliver the goods to the new campus.
171. Even though the learned counsel for accused No.3, the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for accused No.4 have subjected PW25 to cross examination in detail, there is absolutely no material forthcoming in the evidence of cross examination of PW25 to make his evidence dis-believable regarding the import of the goods as per the concerned consignments. It is true that in the evidence in cross-examination by the counsel for accused No.4 one indemnity bond dated 23.05.1994 of accused No.2 is identified by PW25 and it is got marked by the accused No.4 as per Ex.D.1. Further, the PW24 has identified the documents at Exs.P.110 to P.112 in his evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4.
172. The PW26 Smt. Shanthala Sadashiva is the then Assistant Manager of the accused No.1 company. The evidence of PW26 is regarding Procurement Contract Agreement entered into between the Director, CABS and the accused No.1 company as per Ex.P.106. In the evidence in chief examination the PW26 has deposed that the accused No.3 was visiting her office frequently and she had seen the accused No.4 in her office once or twice. The accused No.3 and 4 visited her 96 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 office for meeting the accused No.2. Moreover, the PW26 has deposed that she signed the agreement at Ex.P.106 as second witness and her signature is marked at Ex.P.106(a). The signature of accused No.2 in Ex.P.106 and the signature of one witness M.S. Sathish are also identified by PW26 and same are marked at Exs.P.106(b) and P.106(c) respectively. Further, certified copy of the cheque is identified by PW26 at Ex.P.107. There is no material in the evidence in cross examination of PW26 by the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 to make the evidence of PW26 dis-believable regarding Procurement Contract Agreement at Ex.P.106 which was allegedly entered into between Director, CABS and the accused No.1 company.
173. The PW32 B.C. Venkatesh is the then Admin Assistant-C in CABS, DRDO Bengaluru at the relevant time. As per the evidence of PW32, he was working in Material Management Department as LDC in CABS and his duty was inviting quotations from suppliers, assisting the Material Management Officer for the preparation of the comparative statements and all connected works in respect of the procurement of materials for the CABS. He used to do all types of typing work entrusted to him. It is the evidence of PW32 that during 1994-95 the accused No.3 gave him a computer floppy and asked him to make some alignment adjustments according to the space in a bond paper and accordingly he obtained print out in the stamp paper after adjusting as requested by the accused No.3 and handed over the print out and floppy to the accused No.3. The said document is identified by PW32 as 97 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 agreement at Ex.P.106. The evidence of PW32 clearly shows regarding forgery of concerned documents by the accused No.3 and 4.
174. The PW32 has also deposed that the accused No.3 gave him a draft letter dated 17.04.1995 to type the said letter and xerox copy of the said letter typed by him is at Ex.P.126. The floppy is identified by PW32 as MO1. Further, the PW32 has deposed that he is able to identify the signature of accused No.4 and the handwriting of accused No.3. 13 purchase orders identified by him as the orders maintained in his office and those purchase orders are in the handwriting of accused No.3. Those purchase orders are identified by PW32 as per Exs.P.127 to P.139 and the signatures of accused No.4 in those purchase orders are identified by PW32 and same are marked at Ex.P.127(a) to P.139(a).
175. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has not chosen to cross examine PW32. Further, even though the learned counsel for accused No.3 and the learned counsel for accused No.4 have subjected PW32 to cross-examination, there is absolutely no material in the evidence of PW32 to make his testimony regarding the purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139, the procurement contract agreement at Ex.P.106 and the floppy at MO1 dis-believable.
176. In the evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 it is denied that the signatures at Exs.P.127(a) to 98 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 P.139(a) are the signatures of accused No.4. Except such denial there is no material forthcoming from the accused No.4 in the evidence of PW32 to make out any case that the signatures at Exs.P.127(a) to P.139(a) are not the signatures of accused No.4. Therefore, the evidence of PW32 along with evidence of PW25 and PW26 proves the case of prosecution that the agreement at Ex.P.106 and the purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139 were forged and concocted by the accused No.3 and 4 in collusion with accused No.2 for importing the concerned goods as if those were imported in the name of CABS, DRDO.
177. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the PW13 Gopalakrishna is the then Senior Deputy Manager of Vysya Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Bengaluru, wherein the accused No.1 company was having account. The evidence of PW13 is regarding the authorization letter issued by accused No.1 company letter dated 11.11.1994 authorising the Bank for insuring the goods, letter of pledge along with the enclosures relating to the materials, letter dated 11.11.1994 of accused No.1 company for loan amount of Rs.15 lakh, hypothecation agreement relating to the stock given by the accused No.1 company on 08.11.1995, on demand promissory note and the general terms and conditions relating to advances at Exs.P.60 to P.66 respectively.
178. The PW13 has also deposed regarding the account opening form of accused No.1 company, xerox copy of specimen signatures card, letter dated 16.02.1996 of the accused No.1 company requesting 99 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 for a certificate confirming the pledge of goods, letter dated 11.03.1996 of accused No.1 company authorising the Bank to sell the goods to Electronic Radar Development Establishment (LRDE), letter dated 27.12.1996 informing the Bank that the accused No.1 company was making negotiation with Government for disposal of the goods, quotation of his Bank given to LRDE, one more quotation dated 05.03.1996 addressed to LRDE and purchase order dated 13.03.1996 given by LRDE at Exs.P.67 to P.73 respectively.
179. The PW13 has identified xerox copy of the cheque issued by LRDE for Rs.6,89,850/- along with xerox copy of acknowledgement, xerox copy of the cheque dated 14.03.1996 for Rs.10,53,000/- issued by LRDE along with xerox copy of acknowledgement from the Bank, letter dated 31.07.1996 issued by the accused No.1 company requesting the Bank for issuance of certificate of pledged goods, another letter dated 03.09.1996 of accused No.1 company giving no objection to the Bank for sale of goods, letter dated 15.11.1996 of accused No.1 company requesting the Bank to release a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards godown rent along with the receipt executed by the Godown owner and confidential letter written by Divisional Office of the Bank to the Senior Manager in connection with the godown of accused No.1 company at Exs.P.74 to P.79 respectively. The documents referred to in the evidence of PW13 clearly prove the Bank transactions and the concerned loan transactions done by the accused No.1 company. 100 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
180. The PW27 B.N. Prasad is the then Branch Manager, SBI, ADE Branch, Bengaluru, wherein the CABS, DRDO was having account. The evidence of PW27 is regarding the letter dated 05.04.1995 issued by CABS as per Ex.P.113 and account opening form pertaining to PF A/c No.55482 as per Ex.P.114. The PW27 has clearly deposed that Dr. K. Ramchand and R. Sathyanarayana were the two persons who could operate the account standing in the name of CABS, DRDO in the said Bank.
181. The PW36 V. Seetharamulu is the then Senior Manager and Chief Manager of Vysya Bank, N.T. Pet branch at Bengaluru wherein the accused No.1 company opened account as per the account opening form at Ex.P.67. The accused No.1 company opened the account and in the said Bank. The accused No.2 is owner of the accused No.1 company. The evidence of PW36 is that during his tenure as Branch Manager in the Bank in the month of July 1994 a cash credit facility of Rs.3,00,000/- and in the month of November 1994 Rs.15,00,000/- limit of produced loan was sanctioned by him in favour of accused No.1 company and the accused No.1 company executed Promissory Note on 11.11.1994 as per Ex.P.65 and the accused No.2 signed the said on demand promissory note in his presence as per Ex.P.65(a). The accused No.1 company also executed Hypothecation Agreement regarding the said loan as per Ex.P.64 and pledged form at Ex.P.63. The PW36 has identified the document at Ex.P.69 as the authorisation 101 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 letter given by the accused No.2 to the Bank authorising the Bank to sell the materials stored in the godown of accused No.1 company and realise the loan amount. The evidence of PW36 stands not controverted by any of the accused persons.
182. The PW37 Narasimhan S. was the Private Secretary to the then General Manager (commercial banking). He has identified the letter addressed to the Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station, addressed by his then General Manager Sunderaman. The xerox copy of the said letter is marked at Ex.P.157 subject to objection. The PW37 has also identified xerox copy of the cheque dated 21.08.1995 for a sum of Rs.93 crore and it is marked at Ex.P.158 subject to objection. The evidence of Pw37 is limited to the letter at Ex.P.157 and cheque at Ex.P.158 and both those documents are xerox copies marked subject to objection.
183. The PW41 Ananthakrishnan is the then Senior Manager of Karnataka Bank, Kempegowda Branch at Bengaluru at the relevant time. The evidence of PW41 is regarding joint account opened by the accused No.4 and his wife in the said Bank. The specimen signature card regarding the said account is marked at Ex.P.162. The certified extract of the statement of account of the said Bank account is marked at Ex.P.163. The PW41 has identified the solvency certificate at Ex.P.164 issued by his Branch for the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- in the name of Miss Preethi Hari Kumar, the daughter of the accused No.4. 102 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 The PW41 has also identified the acknowledgement given by CBI for having delivered to them the documents at Exs.P.162 and P.163. The said acknowledgement is marked at Ex.P.165.
184. The PW42 R.M.R. Pattabhi is the then Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Indiranagar branch at the relevant time, wherein the accused No.4 and his wife opened joint account. The document at Ex.P.166 is the account opening form of the said account. The Ex.P.167 is certified copy of the statement of account pertaining to the said account. The PW43 P. Sanjeeva Shetty is the then Assistant Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank of Indiranagar Branch, wherein the accused No.4 and his wife had opened joint account as per account opening form at Ex.P.169. The documents at Ex.P.170 is certified extract of the statement of account.
185. The PW44 K. Sethuramachar is the then Sub-Manager in Andhra Bank, Indiranagar Branch, wherein the accused No.4 and his wife had joint account. The evidence of PW44 is regarding the cheque for Rs.1,05,000/- standing in the name of Mrs. Uma Hari Kumar, the wife of accused No.4. The concerned acknowledgement is marked at Ex.P.172. Further, the PW44 has identified the account opening form, cheque, pay in slip and statement of account enclosed to Ex.P.172 and same are marked at Exs.P.173 to P.176 respectively. The evidence of PW41 to PW44 is regarding the Bank transactions done by the accused No.4 along with his wife in the concerned Bank accounts. 103 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
186. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for accused No.4, it is true that those Bank accounts and the concerned documents do not prove that the accused No.4 obtained any financial gain due to alleged transactions and forgery of documents in collusion with the accused No.2 and 3 in the case on hand. Hence, the evidence of PW41 to PW44 does not stand for consideration in the case on hand to prove any of the charges made against the accused No.4 for the offences alleged.
187. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the CW55 C.Ashwathappa, the handwriting expert, who allegedly examined the disputed writings in the concerned documents and gave opinion as per his report, is the crucial witness to prove the case of prosecution that the accused No.3 and 4 forged the concerned documents and facilitated the accused No.1 company to import the goods as if those goods were imported by CABS, DRDO claiming exemption of customs duty.
188. The CW55 has been examined as PW46. The PW46 is the retired Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru and he is qualified in examining the documents. As per the evidence of PW46, he was put in more than 32 years of service in the field of document examination and furnishing opinion on the disputed documents. The PW46 has deposed that the documents pertaining to 104 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 the case in Cr.No.239/95 of Cubbon Park Police Station were received in his office on 26.02.1996 with the requisition for examination of the concerned documents as sought for by the Inspector of Police of the said Police Station. The crucial documents examined by PW46 are the cheque at Ex.P.177, the agreement at Ex.P.178 and other documents at Exs.P.179 to P.211 summoned from the file of the case in Spl.CC. No.163/2001.
189. After subjecting those documents to scientific examination the PW46 has given his opinion as per report at Ex.P.212 along with his opinion as per Ex.P.213. The document at Ex.P.214 is the rubber stamp seal furnished by PW46 to the concerned police. The PW46 also sent transparencies for verification of rubber stamp impression with the respective transparency containing six sheets and it is marked at Ex.P.215. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for accused No.3, the concerned documents examined by PW46 and his opinion regarding the concerned documents were already considered by this Court in the case in Spl.CC. No.163/2001, scope of which was regarding the concerned cheque at Ex.P.177.
190. However, this case is not regarding the said cheque. On the other hand, the case alleged against the accused persons by the Prosecutor is that the accused No.3 and 4 in collusion with accused No.2 created forged purchase orders and also the concerned bills of entry and corresponding duty exemption certificates in the name of 105 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 CABS, DRDO and thereby imported concerned goods through the accused No.1 company as if those goods were imported by CABS, DRDO. Therefore, the evidence of PW46 regarding his report at Ex.P.212 and the opinion at Ex.P.214 do not merit for consideration in the case on hand. However, the prosecution has also examined CW56 D.D. Goel, the then Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) as PW55. The crucial documents concerning in this case were examined by Sri. I.K. Arora, who was working as Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (AGEQD) under PW55.
191. The evidence of PW55 is that the said Sri. I.K. Arora, who was working as Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents under him at Hyderabad, examined the disputed documents concerned with the case on hand and gave report regarding the same. The concerned documents are at Exs.P.252 to P.266. The Exs.P.254 to P.266 are specimen handwritings and signatures of the concerned persons in the case on hand. The evidence of PW55 is that all those documents were entrusted to I.K. Arora the then Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for examination and report. Accordingly, the said I.K. Arora examined the documents independently and the PW55 examined the documents in supervising capacity and agreed with the opinion of Sri. Arora.
192. The said opinion is dated 29.11.1999 and it is marked at Ex.P.267. The PW55 has stated that the document at Ex.P.267 bears 106 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 his signature and also the signature of Sri. Arora and those signatures are marked at Exs.P.267(a) and P.267(b) respectively. It is the definite evidence of PW55 in his chief examination that his opinion as per Ex.P.267 are as hereunder:
The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S-141 to S-156, S-156/1, S-157 to S-162, S-168 to S.172, and A-1 to A-5, did not write the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q-28, Q-40 and Q-49. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S-1 to S-140, S-173 to S-199, S-213 to S-222, S-240 to S-245 and S-255 to S-261 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q-1 to Q-13, Q-28, Q-40, Q-49, Q-50 and Q-149(b).
The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S-141 to S-156, S-156/1, S-157 to S-172 and A-1 to A- 5 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q-14 to Q-27, Q-29 to Q-39 and Q-41 to Q-44.
The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked S-223 to S-239 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q-149 to Q-183.
Original documents whose photo-static reproductions marked Q-45 to Q-48, Q-51 to Q-98, Q-100 to Q-148 are needed for examination.
The PW55 has deposed that I.K. Arora submitted his reason in support of his opinion. He did not verify the reasons of Arora in support of his opinion and that he was acquainted with the signature of I.K. Arora, who worked under him and now the said Arora is no more.
193. The reason given in support of the opinion of I.K. Arora contained in the document consisting of 4 sheets is marked at Ex.P.269 in the evidence of PW55. The signature of I.K. Arora in Ex.P.269 is marked at Ex.P.269(a). It is true that the document at Ex.P.269 is marked subject to objection regarding its admissibility. The evidence of 107 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 PW55 is also that the admitted writings of Hari Kumar (the accused No.4) marked A-1 to A-3 are contained in Ex.P.173 and the admitted writings marked A-4 are contained in Ex.P.166.
194. The learned counsel for accused No.4 has subjected PW55 to cross examination, wherein the learned counsel for accused No.4 has got marked the letter along with list of documents at Ex.D.3. The PW55 has deposed that he received the Questioned Documents and specimen signatures as per the said letter dated 15.11.1999 at Ex.D.3 of the S.P., C.B.I., Chennai. Further, as pointed out by the counsel for the accused No.4, the relevant portion in the evidence in cross- examination of PW55 reads thus:
"I did not receive any witness summons in this case either in 2006 or in 2007. During the said period I did not receive any intimation from GEQD Hyderabad regarding my giving evidence in this case. It is not true to suggest that the specimen writings in this case Ex.P.254 to P.266 were in the office of GEQD Hyderabad till April 2007. It is false to suggest that only in April/May 2007 C.B.I. took possession of the said documents."
The copy of the letter dated 23.04.2007 addressed to SP, CBI, EOW, Chennai is got identified by PW55 and it is at Ex.D.4. The PW55 has deposed that the said letter bears the signature of Sri. S.C. Gupta, the then GEQD Hyderabad.
195. It is suggested to PW55 by the learned counsel for accused No.4 that for the reason that I.K. Arora primarily examined the concerned documents, the PW55 suggested the SP, CBI to cite I.K. Arora as a witness and that only as a matter of procedural requirement, 108 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 the PW55 signed the opinion at Ex.P.267 furnished by I.K. Arora. Hence, in the evidence of PW55 in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4, the accused No.4 has tried to make out the case that as PW55 did not examine the concerned documents, his evidence regarding the opinion at Ex.P.267 does not merit consideration.
196. The submission of the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that the evidence of PW55 and the concerned expert report at Ex.P.269 do not stand for consideration, as the concerned examiner Sri. I.K. Arora is not examined by the prosecution. In support of this submission the learned counsel for accused No.4 has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1996 SC 2184 (S. Gopal Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh) in which referring to Sec.42 of Evidence Act it is held that:
"The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence and the Courts do not generally consider it as offering 'conclusive' proof and, therefore, safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration"
The learned counsel for accused No.4 has also relied on one more decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1977 SC 1091 (Magan Bihari Lal V/s. The State of Punjab) in which referring to Sec.45 of Evidence Act regarding evidence of handwriting expert it is held that:
"It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a 109 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 conviction."
It is also very much pertinent to note that the learned counsel for accused No.3 also relied on the above referred decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1977 SC 1091 - 1977 SCR (2)1007 (Magan Bihari Lal V/s. State of Punjab) and argued that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW55 in the case on hand to base any conviction against the accused No.3 for the offences charged.
197. The learned counsel for the accused No.4 has relied on another decision reported in 2017 SAR (Criminal) 631 (Machindra V/s. Sajjan Galpha Rankhamb and others) in which it is held that:
"Expert's opinion should be demonstrative and should be supported by convincing reasons. Court cannot be expected to surrender its own judgment and delegate its authority to a third person, however great. If the report of an expert is slipshod, inadequate or cryptic and information on similarities or dissimilarities is not available in the report of an expert then his opinion is of no value. Such opinions are often of no use to the Court and often lead to the breaking of very important links of prosecution evidence which are led for the purpose of prosecution."
There is absolutely no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions relied on by both the learned counsel for accused No.3 and accused No.4.
198. However, from the discussions made herein above it is clear that the prosecution is not solely depending on the evidence of PW55 to arrive at the conclusion that the accused No.3 and 4 got created false documents such as the concerned purchase orders and Customs duty 110 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 exemption certificates by committing forgery. Hence, even if in view of the decisions referred herein above the evidence of PW55 is discarded, it does not make out any ground to come to the conclusion that the accused No.3 and 4 are not guilty of the offences charged against them in the case on hand.
199. Moreover, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the evidence of the concerned officials of CABS, Customs Officials and Officials of Customs House Agents forthcoming on record clearly goes to show that the concerned duty exemption certificates were concocted by the accused No.4 and thereby the goods were imported through the accused No.1 company as if those goods were imported by the CABS, DRDO. Further, the contract procurement agreement at Ex.P.106 and the material objects at MO1 and MO2 coupled with evidence of the concerned official of CABS (PW32) clearly goes to show that the accused No.3 forged those documents and thereby created documents to show that the DRDO was importer of the concerned materials facilitating the accused No.1 company to claim exemption of customs duty and obtain pecuniary advantage to the accused No.1 company of which the accused No.2 was the owner.
200. As submitted by the counsel for accused No.4 and also as forthcoming from the documentary evidence available on record on behalf of prosecution, it is clear that some of the documents produced and got marked by the prosecution are xerox copies and those 111 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 documents are marked subject to objection. Even subsequently the prosecution has not chosen to produce the concerned original documents or made out any ground as per Evidence Act to adduce secondary evidence regarding the concerned xerox copies of documents which are admitted in evidence subject to objection.
201. The learned counsel for accused No.4 has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2007 AIR SCW 2713 (Smt. J. Yashoda V/s. Smt. K. Shobha Rani) in which referring to the provision of Sec.63 and 65(a) of Evidence Act it is held that:
"Documents in question were admittedly photo copies. There was no possibility of said documents being compared with original as same were with another person. Conditions in Sec.65(a) had not been satisfied. Documents cannot be therefore, accepted as secondary evidence."
The learned counsel for accused No.4 has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 1988 Kar 3347 (Avalappa V/s. Krishnappa) in which referring to Sec.65 of Evidence Act it is held that:
"The conditions laid down in the Section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted and secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without the non- production of the original being first accounted for, in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section. This Section is not intended to be utilised for the benefit of persons who deliberately or with sinister motives refuse to produce in Court a document which is in their possession power or control. It is designed only for the protection o persons who in spite of best efforts are unable from circumstances beyond their control to place before the Court primary evidence as required by law, nor this can be invaded, in cases, where the party wilfully fails to produce the document at all relevant periods, but puts it at the time of the arguments in Court of the last resort."112 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
The learned counsel for accused No.4 has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1990 (LIC of India and another V/s. Ram Pal Singh Bisen) in which referring to Sec.21 and 65 of Evidence Act and Order XII Rules 1 and 2 of CPC it is held that:
"Mere admission of document in evidence does not dispense with its proof"
The learned counsel for accused No.4 has relied on another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2013 SAR (Cr) 1031 (Kaliya V/s. State of MP) in which referring to Sec.65 of Evidence Act it is held that:
"Secondary evidence can be adduced relating to a document when the original has been destroyed or lost or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot for any other reason, not arising from his own default, or neglect, produced it in reasonable time. Court is obliged to examine the probative value of documents produced in Court or their contents and decide the question of admissibility of a document is admissible only and only when the party desirous of admitting it has proved before the Court that it was not in his possession or control of it and further, that he has done what could be done to procure the production of it. Thus, the party has to account for the non-production in one of the ways indicated in Sec.65. Party further has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced. When party gives in evidence a certified copy/secondary evidence without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, the opposite party must raise an objection at the time of admission. In case, an objection is not raised at that point of time, it is precluded from being at a belated stage. Further, mere admission of a document does not amount to its proof. Nor, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law".
The learned counsel for accused No.4 has referred to one more decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in 1995 Crl. L.J. 4181 (B.H. Narasimha Rao V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by CBI) 113 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 in which regarding the offence under Sec.120-B of IPC it is held that:
"Accused charged for commission of offence in conspiracy with seven others and all other complaint-accused acquitted, accused cannot be convicted for offence under Sec.120-B. Conviction under Sec.120-B on mere ground that accused was head of section of branch where fraud was alleged to be committed, cannot also be sustained".
On the basis of the above referred decisions the submission of the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that the concerned documents, which are admitted in evidence by the prosecution subject to objection, do not stand for consideration.
202. There is absolutely no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions regarding admissibility of secondary evidence. But, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, even if the concerned documents, the xerox copies of which are admitted in evidence, are discarded by this Court, it does not by itself make the case of prosecution alleged against the accused persons not maintainable in its entirety. The prosecution case is based on the documentary evidence to its larger extent and the prosecution have produced the relevant original documents and those documents are admitted in evidence. Hence, on the basis of such documents forthcoming from the prosecution there is absolutely no reason to believe the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
203. If the evidence of prosecution forthcoming on record is summed up, it is clear that it is the definite case of prosecution that the 114 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 accused No.4 had no authority to issue any purchase orders as per Exs.P.127 to P.139 and the concerned duty exemption certificates claiming exemption of duty on any of the consignments imported for CABS, DRDO. It is very pertinent to note that it is also the case of accused No.4 that he had no authority to issue the concerned purchase orders on behalf of DRDO for purchase of any materials mentioned in those purchase orders. But it is very much interested to note that the purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to 139 are signed by the accused No.4. If at all it is the case of accused No.4 that his signatures in those purchase orders were forged signatures, he could have taken necessary steps against any concerned person or persons for the alleged forgery of his signatures in those purchase orders.
204. It is also pertinent to note that the concerned duty exemption certificates forthcoming on record such as Exs.P.23, P.25 and P.50 etc. are also having signatures of accused No.4 on behalf of CABS, DRDO. If the accused No.4 had no authority to sign such duty exemption certificates on behalf of CABS, DRDO, the question of any persons concerned with CABS, DRDO committing forgery of the signature of accused No.4 and falsely creating the concerned customs duty exemption certificates should not have arisen. Further, the evidence of concerned officials of CABS, DRDO clearly proves that the DRDO did not import any materials mentioned in the purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139. Moreover, as per the concerned Notifications, which are produced and got marked by the prosecution and also by the 115 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 accused persons as forthcoming on record, it is clear that there was no exemption from payment of customs duty for the materials sought to be purchased as per the purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139.
205. Moreover, the seizer of concerned documents, floppy and computer printer from the possession of accused No.3 during the investigation of the case clearly shows that the accused No.3 and 4 colluded with the accused No.2 and thereby created forged documents for claiming customs duty exemption for the materials imported in the name of CABS, DRDO, even though those materials were not imported by the CABS, DRDO and there was no customs duty exemption for such materials. Hence, the relevant evidence on record clearly proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 being public servants as officials of CABS, DRDO at the relevant time facilitated the accused No.2, he being the owner of accused No.1 company, to obtain pecuniary advantage by falsely claiming customs duty exemption in respect of the concerned materials got imported by the accused No.1 company in the name of CABS, DRDO through Customs House Agents at Chennai, Cochin and Bengaluru at the relevant times.
206. Even though the accused No.3 and 4 have not chosen to adduce any evidence they have produced and got marked documents at Exs.D.1 to D.13 in support of their defence. The document at Ex.D.1 is the indemnity bond allegedly executed by the accused No.2 and it is got marked by the accused No.4 in the cross examination of PW25 G. 116 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Murthy, who is the then Marketing Manager of the accused No.1 company. But there is absolutely no material forthcoming from the accused No.4 to show in what way the document at Ex.D.1 is relevant to falsify the case alleged by the prosecution against the accused No.3 and 4.
207. The document at Ex.D.2 is copy of Notification No.155/94 dated 13.07.1994 as amended on 16.03.1994. The copy of the said Notification is also produced by the prosecution as per Ex.P.2. The documents at Exs.D.3 and D.4 are the letters issued by the SP, CBI, to Government Examiner of Questioned Document and the letter issued by the Government Examiner to the SP, CBI respectively. These documents at Exs.D.3 and D.4 are already discussed while considering the evidence of the concerned handwriting expert PW55. The documents at Exs.D.5 to D.11 and D.13 are copies of the concerned Notifications issued by the Customs Department regarding exemption from payment of duty in respect of importing of materials mentioned in those Notifications. There is no dispute regarding those Notifications at Exs.D.5 to D.11.
208. The document at Ex.D.2 is the written submission of the concerned Officer of DRDO to the Court in this case. It is true that the PW38 Sri. Krishnarao Ramachand, the then Director of CABS, DRDO has admitted in his evidence in cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.4 that the contents of Ex.D.12 are true and 117 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 correct. But there is absolutely no material forthcoming from the accused No.4 to show that in spite of the contents of the document at Ex.D.12, the case alleged against the accused No.3 and 4 in the case on hand is disbelievable. It is very much pertinent to note that the concerned purchase orders and the duty exemption certificates are having the signatures of accused No.4. Hence, those documents clearly show that they are falsely created even though the accused No.4 had no authority to issue such documents. Hence, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the documents at Exs.D.1 to D.13 are in no way helpful to the accused No.3 and 4 to make out any ground that the case of prosecution alleged against the accused No.3 and 4 is false.
209. It is true that the case alleged against the accused No.3 and 4 is also for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Sec.120-B of IPC. The counsel for accused No.4 has drawn the attention of this Court to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2012 SC 493 (Sherimon V/s. State of Kerala) in which regarding the offence punishable under Sec.120-B of IPC it is held that:
"For offence of conspiracy there must be meeting of minds resulting in decision taken by conspirators regarding commission of crime when there is no such evidence had come on record as only witness turned hostile, evidence on record is totally inadequate to come to conclusion that appellant and other accused hatched criminal conspiracy. Hence, conviction of appellant with aid of Sec.120-B is liable to be set aside."
The learned counsel for accused No.4 has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 05.09.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Cr.R.P. No.708/2010 (J.K. Srinivasa Murthy V/s. 118 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 State of Karnataka and another). There is no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions relied on by the learned counsel for accused No.4.
210. There is no direct evidence forthcoming on record in the case on hand to prove that the accused No.3 and 4 conspired with the accused No.2 to commit any offence alleged against them. The case on hand is based on the circumstantial evidence with connecting links on the basis of documentary evidence to prove the charges against the accused persons in the case. However, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and proving the said offence substantial direct evidence may not be possible to be obtained. The manner in which the accused persons are proved to have committed other offences alleged against them in the case would clearly indicate involvement of the accused No.3 and 4 in the offence to conduct a conspiracy. Hence, in spite of the above referred decisions relied on by the learned counsel for accused No.4, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 have committed the offence of conspiracy as alleged in the case.
211. The offences charged against the accused No.3 and 4 in the case on hand are also punishable under Sec.467, 468 and 471 of IPC. It is clear that said offences are forgery of valuable security, will etc., forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document or electronic records. As discussed herein above, the 119 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 prosecution evidence on record clearly proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the procurement contract agreement at Ex.P.106, the concerned duty exemption certificates such as Exs.P.23, P.25 and P.50 etc. and the purchase orders at Exs.P.127 to P.139 were forged by the accused No.1 and 2 and those documents are used as genuine as if those documents are of CABS, DRDO for claiming customs duty exemption regarding the materials imported in the name of CABS, DRDO, even though the concerned materials were not imported by CABS, DRDO and they were not required by them and there was no exemption of customs duty regarding import of any such materials.
212. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the evidence forthcoming on record proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy the accused No.3 and 4 based on the concerned purchase orders in the name of accused No.1 company fabricated forged procurement contract agreement for Rs.25 crores by removing specimen copy of agreement from the office of CABS, DRDO and used it as a specimen for forging procurement contract. Moreover, the accused No.3 and 4 knowing fully well and having knowledge of the fact that the alleged materials imported in the name of CABS, DRDO through the accused No.1 company had no exemption from payment of customs duty, issued the concerned false duty exemption certificates claiming evasion of payment of customs duty on the materials imported. Hence, the prosecution evidence forthcoming on record clearly proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 have 120 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 committed forgery of documents to make the accused No.1 company to get exemption of customs duty regarding importing of concerned materials and such forgery was for the purpose of cheating the concerned department CABS, DRDO.
213. It is true that regarding proof of offence of forgery, the learned counsel for accused No.4 has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat reported in 1991 Crl. L.J. 2241 (Arvind Balashanker Joshi V/s. State of Gujarat) in which in the case for the offence punishable under Sec.409, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC it is held that:
"Document proved to be not forged by accused. Accused acquitted of offence under Sec.468 cannot be convicted for knowledge or reason to believe about alleged forged document under Sec.471 and 420 in absence of direct and independent evidence. He cannot also be convicted under Sec.409 of IPC."
The learned counsel for accused No.4 has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2010) ACR 51 (Md. Ibrahim and others V/s. State of Bihar and another) in which in the case for offences punishable under Sec.467 and 471 of IPC it is held that:
"By merely alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under IPC or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under IPC or other law. Appellant facing prosecution on the allegation of executing forged document. Execution of such document purporting to convey some property of which he is not owner is not execution of a false document and as such is not forgery. In such cases Section 467 and 471 not attracted. Averments in complaint do not make out any offence under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 of IPC, but may technically show ingredients of offences of wrongful restraint under Section 343 and causing hurt under Section 323 of IPC."
There is no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down in the 121 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 above referred decisions relied on by the learned counsel for accused No.4. But as discussed herein above, the prosecution evidence available on record in the case on hand proves beyond all reasonable doubt that there is sufficient material against the accused No.3 and 4 that they have committed offences punishable under Sec.467, 468 and 471 of IPC as charged. Therefore, the above referred decisions are in no way helpful to the accused No.4 to come to the conclusion that he is innocent of the said offences in the present case.
214. The commission of forgery of the concerned documents by the accused No.3 and 4 clearly goes to show that they cheated their department DRDO, i.e., Ministry of Defence and also the department of Customs for obtaining pecuniary advantage to the accused No.1 company by falsely claiming customs duty exemption regarding importing of materials in the name of CABS, DRDO. Hence, there is sufficient material forthcoming on record to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 have committed the offence punishable Sec.420 of IPC.
215. It is not in dispute that the accused No.3 and 4 are officials of CABS, DRDO at the relevant time and they while holding office as public servants by abusing their position as public servants created and forged the concerned documents in the name of CABS, DRDO and thereby facilitated the accused No.1 company for importing materials in the name of CABS, DRDO by falsely claiming customs duty exemption 122 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 and thereby the accused No.3 and 4 have committed criminal misconduct as public servant making the accused No.1 company to obtain pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Hence, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 have committed offence punishable under Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of the Act.
216. There is case charged against the accused No.3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act. The offence under Sec.132 of Customs Act is making, using or causing to be made any declaration, statement or document in the transaction of any business relating to customs, knowing or having reason to believe that such declaration, statement or document is false in any material particular. The offence under Sec.135 of Customs Act is evading or attempting to evade any customs duty chargeable on the concerned materials purchased/ imported.
217. As discussed herein above, in the case on hand it is clear that the accused No.3 and 4 being officials of CABS, DRDO knowing fully well that there was no exemption from payment of customs duty regarding the concerned materials, forged and created false duty exemption certificate and thereby facilitated the accused No.1 company for evasion from payment of customs duty having aware of the fact that the concerned duty exemption certificates are false documents. 123 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
218. However, the submission of the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that the Customs Act being special enactment and there is special provision for investigation and trial of the cases for the offences punishable under the said Act, trial of the offences punishable under Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act is not maintainable in the case on hand. The learned counsel for accused No.4 has drawn the attention of this Court to Sec.4 of Cr.P.C. which reads thus:
"4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal code and other laws.-
(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, enquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences"
The argument of the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that in view of the provision of Sec.4(2) of Cr.P.C. trial of the case for the offences punishable under Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act does not stand for consideration in the case on hand.
219. The learned counsel for accused No.4 has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2011 (272) ELT 321 (S.C.) (Om Prakash V/s. Union of India). The learned counsel for accused No.4 has relied on another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1984 SC 718 (A.R. Antulay V/s. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another). Further, the learned counsel for accused No.4 has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana reported in 1992 (1) 124 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 143 (P & H) (Daljit Singh V/s. State of Punjab) in which it is held that:
"Juvenile Justice Act is a complete Code in itself and has sweepingly overriding effect on any other enactment of the State Legislature or Parliament regarding inquiry or trial against a delinquent juvenile on any criminal charge."
The learned counsel for accused No.4 has relied on the above mentioned three decisions in support of his contention that in the case on hand there are offences charged against the accused persons punishable under Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act and hence, the proceedings as contemplated under the Customs Act should have been taken.
220. However, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, even though the above referred first decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is regarding the Customs Act, the said decision is regarding granting of bail in favour of accused, who is alleged to have been committed offence under the Customs Act. In the said decision it is held that the offences under the Customs Act 1962, being non cognizable and bailable, Customs Officers has no power to arrest without warrant. If arrested person offers bail, he shall be released on bail, if not wanted in connection with any other offence.
221. Moreover, the second decision referred herein above is regarding private complaint in which it is held that a private complaint can be entertained by the Special Judge in respect of the offences committed by public servants as enumerated in Sec.6(1)(a) and (b) of 125 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 the 1952 Act. Cognizance of the same by Special Judge is legal. It is held in the said decision that:
"it is a well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. Locus Standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant. By necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision. Punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for larger good of the society. Right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down. Circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a strait-jacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence. Save and except specific statutory exception."
The third decision referred herein above is of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the said decision is under Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Therefore, even though there is no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions relied on by the learned counsel for accused No.4, those decisions are in no way applicable to the case on hand to make out any ground to show that the present proceedings are not maintainable regarding the offences alleged against the accused persons punishable under Sec.132 and 135 of the Customs Act.
222. The argument of the learned counsel for accused No.3 is that the documents alleged to have been seized in this case have no link to the accused No.3 and that the accused No.3 has not committed any forgery. It is also the argument of the learned counsel for accused No.3 that as the complainant Smt. Girija Mathangi is not examined, the complaint at Ex.P.6 does not stand for consideration. The counsel for 126 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 accused No.3 has also argued that no independent witnesses are examined to prove the alleged seizer of documents from the table drawer of the accused No.3 and there was no search warrant to search the house of the accused No.3 and therefore, no case is proved against the accused No.3 for any of the offences charged.
223. However, as discussed herein above, it is clear that non examination of the complainant Smt. Girija Mathangi does not vitiate the complaint at Ex.P.6 in its entirety. The offences alleged against the accused persons are cognizable offences and therefore, the question of search warrant or any permission to search the house of accused No.3 is not required. There is no dispute that the properties at MO1 and MO2 seized in this case are belonging to CABS, DRDO and they were seized along with other relevant documents in respect of accused No.3. Further, the concerned staff of CABS, DRDO have clearly deposed regarding the seizer of the documents and floppy from the table drawer of accused No.3 by the Investigation Officer in the case.
224. Moreover, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, there is sufficient oral evidence available on record by way of testimony of the concerned officials of Customs House Agent and also officials of CABS, DRDO and also documentary evidence in the form of the concerned procurement contract agreement to make out circumstances to link the accused No.3 to the commission of forgery of the concerned documents to facilitate the accused No.1 company to have pecuniary advantage by 127 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 way of evasion from payment of customs duty on the materials imported in the name of CABS, DRDO through the accused No.1 company.
225. It is true that at the time of argument the learned counsel for accused No.3 has produced copy of the judgment dated 31.12.2016 of this Court in Spl.CC. No.163/2001, wherein the accused No.3 being accused No.10 along with other accused persons is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.381, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 r/w. Sec.120-B of IPC. But the said judgment is regarding the alleged cheque at Ex.P.177. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, scope of the said case is quite different from the scope of the case on hand. The present case is regarding the forgery of the concerned documents suh as purchase orders and customs duty exemption certificates for falsely claiming exemption from payment of customs duty on the materials imported through the accused No.1 company as if those materials were imported by the CABS, DRDO.
226. The discussions made herein above clearly go to prove the part played by the accused No.3 and 4 in the offences alleged against them in the case. Hence, mere fact that the accused No.3 being accused No.10 along with other accused persons is acquitted in the above said case in Spl.CC. No.163/2001 cannot be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that the accused No.3 is innocent of the offences charged against him in the present case. Moreover, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, in view of the Sec.43 of the Evidence Act, the 128 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 judgment in Spl.CC. No.163/2001 becomes irrelevant. The provision of Sec.43 of Evidence Act reads thus:
"43. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40 to 42, when relevant.- Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are relevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provisions of this Act."
The judgment in Spl.CC. No.163/2001 does not come within the ambit any of the sections 40 to 42 of Evidence Act. Further, it is not the case of accused No.3 that the existence of the said judgment is fact in issue in the case on hand or is relevant under some other provisions of Evidence Act. Hence, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the judgment in Spl.CC. No.163/2001 does not merit for consideration in the case on hand to come to the conclusion that the accused No.3 is innocent of the offences charged against him in this case.
227. The argument of both the learned counsel for accused No.3 and accused No.4 is that in the criminal case the burden of proving the offences charged against the accused is entirely on the prosecution and prosecution shall prove the offences charged against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. In support of this argument the learned counsel for accused No.4 has drawn the attention of this Court to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1459 (Vijayee Singh and others V/s. State of U.P ) in which referring to Sec.101, 104 and 105 of Evidence Act it is held that:
"The general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts. Even in respect of the cases 129 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 covered by Sec.105 the prosecution is not absolved of its duty of discharging the burden. The accused may raise a plea of exception either by pleading the same specifically or by relying on the probabilities and circumstances obtaining in the case. He may adduce the evidence in support of his plea directly or rely on the prosecution case itself or, he can indirectly introduce such circumstances by way of cross-examination and also rely on the probabilities and the other circumstances."
In the criminal cases, it is an accepted principle of law that burden is always on the prosecution and it never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
228. The learned counsel for accused No.4 has also relied on another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1980 SCC (Cri) 546 [Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar V/s. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu)] and Moreshwar Hari Mahatme V/s. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu) in which referring to Sec.103 and 102 of Evidence Act it is held that:
"Onus of proof of existence of every ingredient of charge always rests on the prosecution and never shifts on the accused."
It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2017 SAR (Criminal) 631 SC (Machindra V/s. Sajjan Galpha Rankhamb and others), which is relied on by the learned counsel for accused No.4 regarding the point of appreciation of expert evidence, has also held that:
"Cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence pertaining to the 'burden of proof on the prosecution' in criminal cases is that the 130 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case."
In the decision referred herein above, the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2016 SC 5160 (Yogesh Singh V/s. Mahabeer Singh & Ors) has been referred to. From the said decision it is clear that reasonable doubt is not an imaginary trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense.
229. From the discussions made herein above in the case on hand, it is clear that the concerned documentary evidence forthcoming on record along with the oral evidence of concerned officials of Customs department and CABS, DRDO clearly goes to prove the offences charged against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. If at all it is the case of the accused No.4 that his signatures in the concerned purchase orders and duty exemption certificates were forged, he could have taken necessary steps against the concerned persons. The accused No.3 and 4 have failed to make out any case to have reasonable doubt regarding the evidence of prosecution available on records.
230. Further, it is very pertinent to note that in the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused No.4 accepts saying that he has been falsely implicated in the matter, he has failed to substantiate 131 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 any reason to show why he should be falsely implicated in the case. It is true that the accused No.4 has produced copies of some documents at the time of recording of his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Those documents are regarding appreciation of his work in his department, Hindustan Aeronautic Limited. But any such document does not falsify the case alleged against the accused No.4 in the case on hand.
231. The accused No.3 in his statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C has not put forth any contention on his behalf except stating that the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution as totally false. Hence, the accused No.3 has also failed to make out any circumstances to have reasonable doubt about the evidence of prosecution forthcoming on record. Hence, there is absolutely no material on record to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the concerned documents regarding the offences charged against the accused No.3 and 4 in the case on hand.
232. The meticulous consideration of written arguments submitted by both the learned counsel for accused No.3 and 4, it is clear that the counsel for those accused persons have tried to point out discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel have also explained in detail the principles of law laid down in the decisions relied on by them in support of their arguments. But herein above at relevant stage this Court has considered each and 132 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 every aspect of the points put forth by the both the counsel for accused No.3 and 4. As discussed herein above, evidence forthcoming from the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 have committed the offences charged against them in this case.
233. Any of the contentions of the counsel for accused No.3 and 4 does not merit consideration in law and also on the facts of the case to discard the evidence of prosecution forthcoming on record. As discussed herein above, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 have committed offences punishable under Sec.120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of the Act and Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act charged against them in the case on hand. Hence, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the prosecution has proved point Nos.1 to 7 and therefore, the point Nos.1 to 7 are answered in the affirmative.
234. Point No.8: For the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused No.3 and 4 are found guilty of the offences charged against them in this case and hence, the accused No.3 and 4 are liable to be convicted of the alleged offences in the case on hand. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(2) and 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.3 and 4 are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sec.120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of 133 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Indian Penal Code and Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act, 1962.
This case against the accused No.1 and 2 is already dismissed as abated.
After hearing both the parties on sentence, the order regarding sentence will be passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript revised by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 13th day of December, 2019) Digitally signed by TYAGARAJA TYAGARAJA NARAYAN INAVALLY DN: cn=TYAGARAJA NARAYAN NARAYAN INAVALLY,ou=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,o=HIGH COURT OF INAVALLY KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN Date: 2019.12.18 15:42:38 IST (T.N. INAVALLY) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases Bengaluru 17.12.2019 ORDER ON SENTENCE The accused No.3 and 4 are present. Their learned counsel are also present. Heard the accused No.3 and 4 and their learned counsel and also the learned Prosecutor regarding question of sentence.
2. The counsel for accused No.3 files memo producing copies of some medical documents pertaining to accused No.3. The counsel for accused No.4 also files memo producing document regarding the ailment of accused No.4. Further, the learned Prosecutor files memo producing 2 citations and the learned counsel for accused No.4 files memo furnishing one citation in support of their respective submissions.
3. The submission of the accused No.3 and his learned counsel is that now the accused No.3 is aged 57 years and he is suffering from hyper tension, hypothyroidism and Diabetes Mellitus with Hypoglycemic Episode. The accused No.3 is also suffering from Chronic Renal Failure and hence, now he require periodical dialysis. Hence, the accused No.3 has sought for leniency in imposing sentence on the accused No.3.134 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
4. The submission of the accused No.4 and his counsel is that the accused No.4 is suffering from Cardio Vascular problems and now he is aged 76 years and hence, leniency may be shown to accused No.4 in imposing sentence on him. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for accused No.4 is that the Court may impose sentence of imprisonment of less than the period, even if there is mandatory minimum punishment for the concerned offence. In support of this argument the learned counsel for accused No.4 has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2014) 3 SCC 485 (V.K. Verma V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation), in which it is held that:
"Old age, ill health, long delay in prosecution, also economics of incarceration are mitigating factors for imposing sentence on the accused."
Further, it is also held in the said decision that:
"The long delay before the Courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior Courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence."
It is true that this case has been pending for the long period of about 19 years for taking final decision. However, as per the facts of the above referred decision it is clear that the said case is regarding demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.265 by the concerned public servant from a contractor. But in the case on hand the case alleged against the accused No.3 and 4 of forgery of concerned documents for claiming exemption from payment of customs duty on the concerned materials imported. The accused No.3 and 4 are the then officials of DRDO which is under Ministry of Defence. Hence, the accused No.3 and 4 cheated their department and also the department of Customs due to the alleged act committed by them.
5. Moreover, the learned Prosecutor has submitted that the accused No.3 and 4 are convicted for the offences punishable under 135 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Sec.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act and Sec.132 and 135 of Customs Act along with the concerned offences under IPC. Hence, the offences for which the accused No.3 and 4 are convicted are under special enactments such as PC Act and Customs Act and therefore, leniency in sentence is not permissible and the reduction of minimum sentence prescribed in statute cannot be applied. Further, considering gigantic problem of corruption by public servant and its serious ill effects, lenient view cannot be taken in the case against the accused No.3 and 4 regarding order of sentence.
6. In support of this submission of the learned Prosecutor, he has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in:
(2011) 10 SCC 259 (A.B. Bhaskara Rao V/s. Inspector of Police, CBI Vishakapatnam), and (2006) 8 SCC 693 (State of M.P. V/s. Shambhu Dayal Nagar) The submission of the learned Prosecutor is that in view of the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions, no leniency can be shown to the accused No.3 and 4 and the adequate and proper sentence should be imposed on those accused persons.
7. The submissions of both the parties are taken into consideration in the circumstances of the case. From the materials on record, it is clear that the accused No.3 and 4 were the public servants in Ministry of Defence at the relevant time and they are convicted for the offence of criminal misconduct by public servants, which is punishable under Sec.13(2) of PC Act. It is undoubtedly a social evil and public menace. Hence, if the leniency is shown to the accused No.3 and 4, it will give wrong message to the society at large. The accused No.3 and 4 have committed offence, which is grave social evil. However, as per the materials on record, it is clear that the accused No.3 and 4 are suffering from ailments, which require day to day treatment. Moreover, 136 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 the accused No.4 is now aged about 76 years and he has already retired from service. Further, the accused No.3 and 4 suffered trial of the case for long period of about 19 years. There is no material to show that the accused No.3 and 4 have obtained any pecuniary advantage in the offences committed by them. Hence, considering materials on record the accused No.3 and 4 are entitled to some leniency in imposing sentence.
8. It is true that the learned Prosecutor has sought for payment of compensation to the victim out of the fine amount. But the accused No.3 and 4 are convicted for the offence committed against their department and also the department of customs. However, there is absolutely no material to show that either the department of accused No.3 and 4 or the department of customs suffered any loss due to any of the alleged offence committed by the accused No.3 and 4. There is also no material on record to show that the accused No.3 and 4 gained any pecuniary advantage out of the offence committed by them. Hence, the question of payment of any compensation to the victim or the complainant in the case on hand does not arise for consideration on the facts of the case and also in law.
9. It is well settled principle of law that the Court should weigh the sentence with reference to the crime committed and circumstances of the case and not with reference to anything. The relevant facts to be considered before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused persons are the motive, intention of the accused persons to commit offence, the gravity, dimension and nature of injury, the age and general health condition of the accused persons etc. Such circumstances are only illustrative and not exhaustive. Further, imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. Any liberal approach in posing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view is against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by imposing proper and 137 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 adequate sentence on the accused.
10. In the result, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and they shall also pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section under Sec.120-B of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 and 4 shall undergo further imprisonment for 3 months.
The accused No.3 and 4 are also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 2 years and they shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 and 4 shall undergo further imprisonment for 6 months.
Further, the accused No.3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and they shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 and 4 shall undergo further imprisonment for 6 months.
The accused No.3 and 4 are also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and they shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 and 4 shall undergo further imprisonment for 6 months.
The accused No.3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and they shall also pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 and 4 shall undergo further imprisonment for 3 months.
Moreover, the accused No.3 and 4 are sentenced to 138 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and they shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 and 4 shall undergo further imprisonment for 6 months.
The accused No.3 and 4 are also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and they shall also pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 132 of Customs Act, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 and 4 shall undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.
Further, the accused No.3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and they shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Customs Act, in default to pay the fine, the accused No.3 and 4 shall undergo further imprisonment for 6 months.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded herein above shall run concurrently.
The period of imprisonment if any already undergone by the accused No.3 and 4 as under trial prisoners in this case shall be given set off towards the punishment of sentence of imprisonment imposed herein.
In pursuance of provision of Sec.363 of Cr.P.C. the copy of judgment is furnished to the accused No.3 and 4 free of costs.
The material objects at MO1 and MO2 shall be returned to the CABS, DRDO through its proper officer after expiry of appeal time.
(Dated this the 17th day of December, 2019)
Digitally signed by TYAGARAJA
TYAGARAJA NARAYAN INAVALLY
DN: cn=TYAGARAJA NARAYAN
NARAYAN INAVALLY,ou=GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA,o=HIGH COURT OF
INAVALLY KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN
Date: 2019.12.18 15:43:03 IST
(T.N. INAVALLY)
XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge for CBI cases
Bengaluru
139 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sri. N.Ramakrishnan
P.W.2 : Sri. S.Sudarshan
P.W.3 : Sri. Dattakumar
P.W.4 : Sri. K. Devanathan
P.W.5 : Sri. G. Perumal
P.W.6 : Smt. Hemavathi
P.W.7 : Sri. C.D. Harish
P.W.8 : Sri. V.K. Umesh
P.W.9 : Smt. M. Annamma
P.W.10 : Sri. M.K. Vijayakumar
P.W.11 : Sri. Bramhanandan
P.W.12 : Sri. A.C. Joseph
P.W.13 : Sri. Gopalakrishna
P.W.14 : Sri. R. Naveenchandra Prabhu
P.W.15 : Sri. Ajay Kumar
P.W.16 : Sri. V.C. Khole
P.W.17 : Sri. S. Ramachandra Sharma
P.W.18 : Sri. Suresh
P.W.19 : Sri. Devendra Pratap Singh
P.W.20 : Sri. P.G. Vakkachan
P.W.21 : Sri. G.S. Sadashivan
P.W.22 : Sri. H. Ramakrishna
P.W.23 : Sri. N. Srinivasan
P.W.24 : Sri. M. Venkatarama Reddy
P.W.25 : Sri. G. Murthy
P.W.26 : Smt. Shanthala Sadashivan
P.W.27 : Sri. B.N. Prasad
P.W.28 : Sri. S. Ramanathan
P.W.29 : Sri. Chandra Prakash
P.W.30 : Sri. V. Ravi Kumar
P.W.31 : Sri. H.R. Ramesh Kumar
P.W.32 : Sri. B.C. Venkatesh
140 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
P.W.33 : Sri. T.G. Radhakrishnan
P.W.34 : Sri. Abbas
P.W.35 : Sri. Tamil Mani
P.W.36 : Sri. V. Seetharamulu
P.W.37 : Sri. Narasimhan S.
P.W.38 : Sri. Krishna Rao Ramachand
P.W.39 : Sri. P.S. Mathur
P.W.40 : Sri. K.V. Srinivasan
P.W.41 : Sri. Ananthakrishnan
P.W.42 : Sri. R.M.R. Pattabhi
P.W.43 : Sri. P. Sanjeeva Shetty
P.W.44 : Sri. K. Sethuramachar
P.W.45 : Sri. George Joseph
P.W.46 : Sri. C. Ashwathappa
P.W.47 : Sri. Rajendra Kumar
P.W.48 : Sri. S. Venu
P.W.49 : Sri. R. Sathyanarayana
P.W.50 : Sri. M.V.S. Prasad
P.W.51 : Sri. A.P. Sudhir
P.W.52 : Sri. T.K. Jayaraman
P.W.53 : Sri. Muralidharan
P.W.54 : Sri. V. Padmanabhan
P.W.55 : Sri. D.D. Goel
P.W.56 : Sri. S. Vellaipandi
P.W.57 : Sri. Jayaprakash Gowda
P.W.58 : Sri. K. Ravindra Prasad
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of complainant Smt.Girija Muthangi in Ex.P.6 Ex.P.2 : Customs' Exemption Notification bearing No.155/94 Dated 13.07.1994. (incomplete) Ex.P.3 : Demand Notice issued to DRDO.
Ex.P.4 : Reply by the Importer, DRDO.
Ex.P.5 : Note Sheets prepared by Smt. Girija Muthangi.
141 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
Ex.P.6 : Complaint given by Smt. Girija Muthangi to the CBI,
Madras.
Ex.P.7 : Original Bill of Entry bearing No.16461 Dated
04.04.1995.
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P.7.
Ex.P.7(b) : Initials of P.W.3 in Ex.P.7.
Ex.P.7(c) : Portion in Column-6 of Ex.P.7.
Ex.P.8 : Original Letter Dated 13.03.1996 from P.W.38 to the
Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of P.W.38 in Ex.P.8.
Ex.P.9 : Copy of Telex/ Fax.
Ex.P.10 : Copy of Letter dated 21.03.1996 addressed by the
Assistant Commissioner of Customs to the Director, DRDO.
Ex.P.11 : Fax Message given by Assistant Commissioner of Customs to Customs House, Madras.
Ex.P.12 : Letter dated 17.4.1996 from Additional Director of DRDO to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs House, Madras.
Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of P.W.35 in Ex.P.12.
Ex.P.13 : Certificate issued by DRDO. Ex.P.14 : Duplicate Bill of Entry of Ex.P.7. Ex.P.14(a) : Initials of P.W.3 in Ex.P.14. Ex.P.15 : Declaration enclosed to Ex.P.14 Ex.P.16 : Original Invoice enclosed to Ex.P.14
Ex.P.16(a) : Endorsement made by P.W.3 in Ex.P.16. Ex.P.17 : Ocean Bill of Lading enclosed to Ex.P.14 Ex.P.18 : Letter dated 30.03.1995 from DRDO to the Assistant Commissioner Customs, Madras enclosed to Ex.P.14. Ex.P.18(a) : Signature of Sri. Hari Kumar (the accused No.4) in Ex.P.18.
Ex.P.19 : Declaration Form enclosed to Ex.P.14. Ex.P.19(a) : Signature of Sri. Hari Kumar (the accused No.4) in Ex.P.19.
Ex.P.20 : Triplicate Bill of Entry of Ex.P.7.
Ex.P.20(a) : Initial of P.W.3 in Ex.P.20.
Ex.P.21 : Original Invoice No.SP95/014 dated 21.02.1994.
142 Spl.CC. No.111/2000
Ex.P.22 : Invoice No.SW94001670 dated 30.09.1994.
Ex.P.23 : Certificate for Exemption from Custom's Duty dated
23.03.1995.
Ex.P.23(a) : Signature of Sri. Hari Kumar (the accused No.4) in Ex.P.23.
Ex.P.24 : Original Bill of Entry No.44294 dated 06.10.1994. Ex.P.24(a) : Quadruplicate Copy of Ex.P.24. Ex.P.24(b) : Triplicate Copy of Ex.P.24. Ex.P.24(c) : Additional Copy of Ex.P.24. Ex.P.24(d) : Signature of Sri.Venkataraman in Ex.P.24. Ex.P.24(e) : Signature of P.W.15 in Ex.P.24. Ex.P.24(f) : Signature of P.W.15 in Ex.P.24. Ex.P.24(g) : Signature of P.W.15 in Ex.P.24. Ex.P.24(h) : Signature of P.W.16 in Ex.P.24. Ex.P.25 : Duty Exemption Certificate dated 03.10.1994 annexed to Ex.P.24 Ex.P.25(a) : Endorsement as "fully utilized" made by P.W.15 in Ex.P.25.
Ex.P.25(b) : Signature of P.W.15 in Ex.P.25. Ex.P.26 : Authorization Letter dated 03.10.1994 by DRDO to Cargo Section, Madras annexed to Ex.P.24 (given to the accused No.4) Ex.P.27 : Bill of Lading dated 01.09.1994 annexed to Ex.P.24 Ex.P.28 : Authorization Letter dated 05.08.1994 given by DRDO to M/s. Jeena & Co. annexed to Ex.P.24 Ex.P.29 : Packing List dated 05.08.1994 annexed to Ex.P.24 Ex.P.30 : Original Declaration given by DRDO annexed to Ex.P.24 Ex.P.31 : GATT declaration given by both the DRDO and South End Technology (the accused No.1 Company) annexed to Ex.P.24 Ex.P.32 : Import Application('B' Form) No.740/65 Dated 10.10.1994.
Ex.P.33 : Lorry Receipt No.26221 Dated 25.10.1994. Ex.P.34 : Letter Dated 30.03.1995 given by Sri.Harikumar, DRDO in favour of M/s.Cargo Section.
Ex.P.35 : Import Application ('B' Form) No.1475/204 Dated 08.04.1995.
143 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.P.36 : Carrier Receipt No.2408 Dated 10.04.1995 issued from All India Trailer Transport.
Ex.P.37 : Letter Dated 21.03.1995 given by South End Technology to M/s.Jeena & Company, Madras.
Ex.P.38 : Triplicate Copy of Bill of Entry No.010118 Dated 31.03.1994.
Ex.P.38(a) : Initial of P.W.22 in Ex.P.38.
Ex.P.38(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.38.
Ex.P.39 : Duplicate Copy of Ex.P.38.
Ex.P.39(a) : Initial of P.W.22 in Ex.P.39.
Ex.P.39(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.39.
Ex.P.40 : Letter Dated 06.04.1994 from Centre for Airborne Systems(CABS) to Collector of Customs, Bengaluru. Ex.P.40(a) : Endorsement with Signature of P.W.24 in Ex.P.40 Ex.P.41 : Xerox Copy of (Ex.P.38 & Ex.P.39) Bill No.010118 Dated 31.03.1994.
Ex.P.41(a) : Signature of P.W.6 in Ex.P.41.
Ex.P.41(b) : Airway Bill- enclosure of Ex.P.41. Ex.P.41(c) : Invoice (Copy of Ex.P.41(f))- enclosure of Ex.P.41. Ex.P.41(d) : Delivery Challan issued from M/s.Venus Shipping Private Limited- enclosure of Ex.P.41.
Ex.P.41(e) : Customs Duty Exemption Certificate- enclosure of Ex.P.41.
Ex.P.41(f) : Invoice No.003552 Dated 10.03.1994 issued from M/s.Hypercoat Enterprises PTE Ltd.- enclosure of Ex.P.41.
Ex.P.41(g) : Signature of P.W.22 in Ex.P.41.
Ex.P.42 : Triplicate Copy of Bill of Entry No.039930 Dated 05.11.1994.
Ex.P.42(a) : Signature of P.W.7 in Ex.P.42.
Ex.P.42(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.42.
Ex.P.43 : Quadruplicate Exchange Control Copy of Ex.P.42. Ex.P.43(a) : Signature of P.W.7 in Ex.P.43.
Ex.P.43(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.43.
Ex.P.44 : Certificate for Exemption from Customs Duty Dated 23.11.1994 given by the Accused-4.
Ex.P.44(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.44.
144 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.P.45 : Tax Invoice No.SW94001963 Dated 28.11.1994 produced along with Ex.P.42.
Ex.P.46 : Tax Invoice No.SW94001974 Dated 29.11.1994 produced along with Ex.P.42.
Ex.P.47 : Original Bill of Entry No.3351 Dated 19.09.1994. Ex.P.47(a) : Signature of P.W.8 in Ex.P.47.
Ex.P.47(b) : Signature of Assistant Commissioner in Ex.P.47.
Ex.P.48 : Duplicate Copy of Ex.P.47.
Ex.P.48(a) : Signature of P.W.8 in Ex.P.48.
Ex.P.48(b) : Order Dated 6.10.1994 passed by P.W.9. Ex.P.48(c) : Signature of P.W.9 in Ex.P.48(b). Ex.P.48(d) : Signature of Sri.D.P.Singh in Ex.P.48. Ex.P.48(e) : Signature of P.W.10-Sri.Vijaya Kumar in Ex.P.48. Ex.P.48(f) : Entry relating to releasing the Goods in Ex.P.48.
Ex.P.49 : Triplicate Copy of Ex.P.47.
Ex.P.49(a) : Signature of P.W.8 in Ex.P.49.
Ex.P.50 : Certificate of Exemption from Customs Duty Dated
07.09.1994.
Ex.P.51 : Form-A-1.
Ex.P.52 : Tax Invoice No.SL9400056 Dated 17.08.1994.
Ex.P.53 : Packing List Dated 14.07.1994.
Ex.P.54 : Original Bill of Entry No.287 Dated 23.1.1995
Ex.P.54(a) : Signature of P.W.11 in Ex.P.54.
Ex.P.54(b) : Certificate for Exemption from Customs Duty Dated 20.01.1995.
Ex.P.54(c) : Letter Dated 06.03.1995 from Transmarine Corporation to the Assistant Collector of Customs.
Ex.P.54(d) : Declaration Form dated 20.01.1995 under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 from Southend Technologies to CABS Ex.P.54(e) : Bill of Lading No.41121749 Dated 01.8.1994.
Ex.P.55 : Duplicate Bill of Entry of Ex.P.54.
Ex.P.55(a) : Signature of P.W.12 in Ex.P.55.
Ex.P.55(a) : Endorsement Dated 07.03.1995 made by P.W.19 on the reverse side of Ex.P.55.
Ex.P.55(b) : Signature of Sri.Devindra Pratap Singh in Ex.P.55. Ex.P.55(b) : Endorsement Dated 30.01.1995 and Initial of P.W.47 on 145 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 the reverse side of Ex.P.55.
Ex.P.56 : Triplicate Bill of Entry of Ex.P.54.
Ex.P.57 : Original Bill of Entry No.530 Dated 09.02.1995. Ex.P.57(a) : Enclosure of Ex.P.57-Certificate for Exemption from Customs Duty Dated 20.01.1995.
Ex.P.57(b) : Enclosure of Ex.P.57-Authorization Dated 12.09.1994. Ex.P.57(c) : Enclosure of Ex.P.57-Request Letter Dated 20.06.1995. Ex.P.57(d) : Enclosure of Ex.P.57-Declaration Form under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 from M/s.Southend Technologies to CABS.
Ex.P.57(e) : Enclosure of Ex.P.57-Invoice No.SP94/010 issued from SA Suppliers.
Ex.P.57(f) : Signature of P.W.11 in Ex.P.57.
Ex.P.58 : Duplicate Bill of Entry of Ex.P.57.
Ex.P.58(a) : Endorsement Dated 22.06.1995 with Signature of P.W.45 in Ex.P.58.
Ex.P.58(b) : Signature of Dock Appraiser-Sri.Devendra Pratap Singh in Ex.P.58.
Ex.P.58(c) : Endorsement Dated 22.06.1995 with Signature of Dock Appraiser-Sri.Devendra Pratap Singh in Ex.P.58. Ex.P.58(d) : Endorsement Dated 28.02.1995 with Initial of Appraising Officer-Sri.Rajendra Kumar in Ex.P.58. Ex.P.59 : Triplicate Bill of Entry of Ex.P.57.
Ex.P.60 : Authorization Letter Dated 11.11.1994 given by M/s.South End Technologies.
Ex.P.61 : Authorization Letter Dated 11.11.94 given by M/s.
South End Technologies.
Ex.P.62 : Letter of Pledge Dated 11.11.94 given by M/s. South End Technologies.
Ex.P.63 : Security Letter Dated 11.11.94 given by M/s. South End Technologies.
Ex.P.63(a) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.63.
Ex.P.64 : Hypothecation Agreement Dated 08.12.1995 given by M/s.South End Technologies to Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.64(a) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.64.
Ex.P.65 : On Demand Pro-note Dated 11.11.94 given by M/s.South End Technologies for Rs.15 Lakhs.
Ex.P.65(a) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.65.
146 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.P.66 : Letter Dated 11.11.94 given by M/s. South End Technologies to Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru. Ex.P.67 : Xerox Copy of Account Opening Form Dated 16.2.1994 of M/s. South End Technologies.
Ex.P.68 : Letter Dated 16.2.1996 given by M/s. South End Technologies to Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru. Ex.P.69 : Letter Dated 11.3.1996 given by M/s. South End Technologes to Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru. Ex.P.69(a) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.69.
Ex.P.70 : Letter Dated 27.12.1996 from M/s. South End Technologies to Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru. Ex.P.71 : Quotation Dated 28.02.1996 from Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru to LRDE pertaining to Aluminum Alley Plates.
Ex.P.72 : Quotation Dated 05.03.1996 from Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru to LRDE.
Ex.P.73 : Purchase Order Dated 13.03.1996 given by LRDE to Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.74 : Xerox Copy of Cheque for Rs.6,89,850/- Dated 14.03.1996 issued from LRDE in the name of Vysya Bank Limited along with Xerox Copy Acknowledgement from the Bank.
Ex.P.75 : Xerox Copy of Cheque for Rs.10,53,000/- Dated 14.03.1996 issued from LRDE in the name of Vysya Bank Limited along with Xerox Copy Acknowledgement from the Bank.
Ex.P.76 : Letter Dated 31.07.1996 from M/s.South End Technologies to Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru. Ex.P.77 : Letter Dated 03.09.1996 from M/s.South End Technologies to Vysya Bank Limited.
Ex.P.78 : Letter Dated 15.11.1996 from M/s.South End Technologies to Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru. Ex.P.79 : Letter Dated 26.07.1995 from Divisional Office of the Vysya Bank Limited to the Senior Manager of N.T.Pet Branch.
Ex.P.80 : Consignment Note No.23012 Dated 7.10.94 pertains to M/s.Triseva Parivahan Services Ltd., Cochin. Ex.P.81 : Consignment Note No.23013 Dated 7.10.94 pertaining to M/s.Triseva Parivahan Services Ltd., Cochin. Ex.P.82 : Consignment Note No.23014 Dated 10.10.94 pertaining to M/s.Triseva Parivahan Services Ltd., Cochin. 147 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Ex.P.83 : Bill of Entry No.30467 Dated 7.9.1994. Ex.P.83(a) : Declaration Form Dated 07.09.1994 accompanied to Ex.P.83.
Ex.P.83(b) : Invoice No.SP94/011 Dated 30.08.1994 accompanied to Ex.P.83.
Ex.P.83(c) : Airway Bill Dated 03.09.1994 accompanied to Ex.P.83. Ex.P.83(d) : Cargo Arrival Notice of Indian Airlines Dated 06.09.
accompanied to Ex.P.83.
Ex.P.83(e) : Certificate of Exemption from CABS, DRDO to Collector of Customs Duty accompanied to Ex.P.83.
Ex.P.83(f) : Initial of P.W.21 in Ex.P.83.
Ex.P.83(g) : Signature of Sri.M.V.Subba Reddy in Ex.P.83. Ex.P.83(h) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.83.
Ex.P.84 : Triplicate Copy of Ex.P.83.
Ex.P.84(a) : Initial of P.W.21 in Ex.P.84 Ex.P.84(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.84.
Ex.P.85 : Quadruplicate Copy of Ex.P.83.
Ex.P.85(a) : Initial of P.W.21 in Ex.P.85 Ex.P.85(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.85.
Ex.P.86 : Tax Invoice No.SW95000316 Dated 28.02.1995. Ex.P.87 : Original Bill of Entry No.029711 Dated 1.9.1994. Ex.P.87(a) : Declaration Form Dated 01.09.1994 accompanied to Ex.P.87.
Ex.P.87(b) : Copy of Invoice No.SW004770 Dated 08.1994 accompanied to Ex.P.87.
Ex.P.87(c) : Cargo Arrival Notice Dated 30.08.1994 accompanied to Ex.P.87.
Ex.P.87(d) : Airway Bill Dated 25.08.1994 accompanied to Ex.P.87. Ex.P.87(e) : Certificate of Exemption from Customs Duty Dated 31.8.1994 accompanied to Ex.P.87.
Ex.P.87(f) : Signature of P.W.21 in Ex.P.87.
Ex.P.87(g) : Signature of Sri.Padmanabhan (C.W.28) in Ex.P.87. Ex.P.87(h) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.87.
Ex.P.87(j) : Endorsement of P.W.21 on the reverse side of Ex.P.87.
Ex.P.88 : Triplicate Copy of Ex.P.87.
Ex.P.88(a) : Initial of P.W.21 in Ex.P.88.
Ex.P.88(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.88.
148 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.P.89 : Xerox Copy of Bill of Entry No.039929 Dated 15.11. Ex.P.89(a) : Duty Exemption Certificate issued by DRDO Dated 23.11.1994.
Ex.P.89(b) : Bill No.681/94 Dated 02.12.1994 of M/s. Venus Shipping Private Limited to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.89(c) : Signature of P.W.21 in Ex.P.89.
Ex.P.89(d) : Signature of P.W.54 in Ex.P.89.
Ex.P.89(e) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.89.
Ex.P.90 : Triplicate Bill of Entry of Ex.P.89.
Ex.P.90(a) : Initial of P.W.21 in Ex.P.90.
Ex.P.90(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.90.
Ex.P.91 : Quadruplicate Bill of Entry of Ex.P.89. Ex.P.91(a) : Initial of P.W.21in Ex.P.91.
Ex.P.91(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.91.
Ex.P.92 : Original Bill of Entry No.002303 Dated 24.01.1994. Ex.P.92(a) : Declaration Form Dated 24.01.1994 annexed to Ex.P.92.
Ex.P.92(b) : Invoice No.003000 Dated 13.01.1994 annexed to Ex.P.92.
Ex.P.92(c) : Delivery Order No.003000 Dated 13.01.1994 to M/s.
Hypercoat Enterprises Private Limited to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.92(d) : Air Cargo Arrival Notice No.1277 Dated 18.01.1994 of M/s. Burlington Air Express (I) Private Limited. Ex.P.92(e) : Airway Bill No.SIN120822 Dated 17.01.1994 M/s.
Burlington Air Express (I) Private Limited.
Ex.P.92(f) : Customs Duty Exemption Certificate Dated 20.01.1994 issued from DRDO to M/s. Southend Technologies. Ex.P.92(g) : Signature of P.W.22 in Ex.P.92.
Ex.P.92(h) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.92.
Ex.P.93 : Triplicate Copy of Bill of Entry of Ex.P.92. Ex.P.93(a) : Signature of P.W.22 in Ex.P.93.
Ex.P.93(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.93.
Ex.P.94 : Triplicate Copy of Bill of Entry No.009012 Dated 23.03.1994.
Ex.P.94(a) : Customs Duty Exemption Certificate Dated 23.03.1994 annexed to Ex.P.94.
149 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.P.94(b) : Invoice No.003552 Dated 10.03.1994 annexed to Ex.P.94.
Ex.P.94(c) : Airway Bill No.SIN135631 Dated 21.03.1994 annexed to Ex.P.94.
Ex.P.94(d) : Air Cargo Arrival Notice-cum-Invoice No.1660 Dated 22.03.1994 annexed to Ex.P.94.
Ex.P.94(e) : Signature of P.W.22 in Ex.P.94.
Ex.P.94(f) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.94.
Ex.P.95 : Bill of Entry No.041334 Dated 24.11.1994. Ex.P.95(a) : Letter Dated 28.11.1994 issued by the Director, CDR to the Assistant Collector of Customs.
Ex.P.95(b) : Certificate for Exemption from Customs Duty Dated 23.11.1994.
Ex.P.95(c) : Declaration Form Dated 24.11.1994. Ex.P.95(d) : Invoice No.SP.94/02 Dated 27.10.1994 issued by M/s.
Singapore Aerospace Suppliers.
Ex.P.95(e) : Air Cargo Arrival Notice Dated 17.11.1994. Ex.P.95(f) : Airway Bill No.238300 Dated 08.11.1994. Ex.P.95(g) : Declaration Form Dated 27.10.1994. Ex.P.95(h) : Signature of P.W.23 in Ex.P.95.
Ex.P.95(j) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.95.
Ex.P.95(k) : Signature of P.W.54 in Ex.P.95.
Ex.P.95(l) : Endorsement of Sri.Srinivasan in Ex.P.95. Ex.P.96 : Triplicate Copy of Bill of Entry No.041334 Dated 24.11.1994.
Ex.P.96(a) : Signature of P.W.23 in Ex.P.96.
Ex.P.96(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.96.
Ex.P.97 : Quadruplicate Copy of Ex.P.96.
Ex.P.97(a) : Signature of P.W.23 in Ex.P.97.
Ex.P.97(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.97.
Ex.P.98 : Xerox Copy of Bill of Entry No.038309 Dated
04.11.1994.
Ex.P.98(a) : Customs Duty Exemption Certificate Dated 03.11.1994. Ex.P.98(b) : Photocopy of Letter Dated 08.11.1994 from DRDO to Assistant Collector of Customs.
Ex.P.98(c) : Airway Bill No.6183498 Dated 15.10.1994 issued from M/s. Singapore Airlines Ltd.
150 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.P.98(d) : Charges Bill No.629/94 Dated 21.11.1994 issued from M/s. Venus Shipping Private Limited.
Ex.P.98(e) : Tax Invoice No.SW95000059 Dated 24.01.1995 issued from M/s. Singapore Airlines Ltd.
Ex.P.98(f) : Signature of P.W.23 in Ex.P.98.
Ex.P.98(g) : Counter Signature of P.W.54 in Ex.P.98.
Ex.P.99 : Triplicate Bill of Entry No.038309(Ex.P.98) Dated
04.11.1994.
Ex.P.99(a) : Signature of P.W.23 in Ex.P.99.
Ex.P.99(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.99.
Ex.P.100 : Quadruplicate Bill of Ex.P.98.
Ex.P.100(a) : Signature of P.W.23 in Ex.P.100. Ex.P.100(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.100. Ex.P.101 : Xerox Copy of Bill of Entry No.033369 Dated 28.09.1994.
Ex.P.101(a) : Tax Invoice No.01612-C Dated 05.09.1994 annexed to Ex.P.101.
Ex.P.101(b) : Duty Exemption Certificate Dated 26.9.1994 issued by DRDO.
Ex.P.101(c) : Signature of P.W.23 in Ex.P.101. Ex.P.101(d) : Counter Signature of P.W.54 in Ex.P.101.
Ex.P.102 : Triplicate Copy of Ex.P.101.
Ex.P.102(a) : Signature of P.W.23 in Ex.P.102. Ex.P.102(b) : Signature of P.W.30 in Ex.P.102. Ex.P.103 : Xerox Copy Delivery Challan No.188 Dated 12.4.1994 Ex.P.104 : Copy of Delivery Challan No.Nil Dated 6.9.1994 Ex.P.105 : Copy of Delivery Challan No.Nil Dated 29.9.1994 Ex.P.106 : Procurement Contract Agreement Dated 17.10.1997 executed between the Director, CABS and M/s. South End Technologies.
Ex.P.106(a) : Signature of P.W.26 in Ex.P.106. Ex.P.106(b) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(c) : Signature of Sri.M.S.Sathish in Ex.P.106. Ex.P.106(d) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(e) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(f) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(g) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
151 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.P.106(h) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(j) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(k) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(l) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(m) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(n) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(o) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(p) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.106(q) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.106.
Ex.P.107 : Certified Copy of Cheque No.090800 Dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93 Crores.
Ex.P.108 : Letter Dated 04.01.1995 from Director-Sri.Harikumar, Logistics Officer.
Ex.P.108(a) : Signature of accused No.4 in Ex.P.108 Ex.P.109 : Delivery Challan Dated 18.10.1993. Ex.P.109(a) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.109.
Ex.P.110 : Quotation Dated 17.12.1993 of M/s. South End Technologies and Communications Private Limited. Ex.P.110(a) : Signature of A-2 in Ex.P.110..
Ex.P.111 : Letter Dated 12.5.1994 from M/s. South End Technologies to CABS.
Ex.P.112 : Terms & Conditions Dated 02.08.1994 of M/s. South End Technologies to CABS.
Ex.P.113 : Letter Dated 5.4.1995 issued from CABS to the Branch Manager, SBI.
Ex.P.113(a) : Endorsement of P.W.27 in Ex.P.113. Ex.P.113(b) : Signature of P.W.35 in Ex.P.113. Ex.P.114 : Account Opening Form Dated 07.04.1995 bearing No.55482 of Dr. K. Ramchand and Sri. R. Sathyanarayana pertaining to PF.
Ex.P.114(a) : Signature of P.W.27 in Ex.P.114. Ex.P.115 : Document Dated 06.05.1995 regarding documents pertaining to M/s.Southend Technologies taken from Table Drawer of A-3.
Ex.P.115(a) : Signature of P.W.28 on the Last Page of Ex.P.115. Ex.P.115(b) : Signature of Gp.Captain-Mathur on the Last Page of Ex.P.115.
152 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.P.115(c) : Signature of Wg. Commander-Meghanath on the Last Page in Ex.P.115.
Ex.P.116 : Letter Dated 31.08.1993 from M/s. Southend Technologies to CABS.
Ex.P.117 : Procurement Contract No.94/2 Dated 17.10.1994. Ex.P.118 : Invoice No.155/93 Dated 18.10.1993. Ex.P.119 : Invoices-12 Nos. with their duplicates. Ex.P.120 : Delivery Challan No.CAB157/93 Dated 05.11.1993. Ex.P.121 : Quotation Dated 10.03.1994 from M/s. Southend Technologies to CABS.
Ex.P.122 : Contingent Bills, Advices & Inspection Note. Ex.P.123 : Greeting Card of M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.124 : Packing List Dated 14.07.1994.
Ex.P.125 : Debit Voucher Register.
Ex.P.125(a) : Entry at Page-64 of Ex.P.125.
Ex.P.125(b) : Entry at Page-65 of Ex.P.125.
Ex.P.125(c) : Entry at Page-66 of Ex.P.125.
Ex.P.125(d) : Entry at Page-67 of Ex.P.125.
Ex.P.126 : Letter Dated 17.04.1995 from CABS to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.127 : Local Purchase Order No.940036 Dated 12.07.1994 issued from DRDO, CABS to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.127(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.127.
Ex.P.127(b) : Entry of Purchase Order No.940036 dated 12.07.1994 in Ex.P.127.
Ex.P.128 : Local Purchase Order No.940034 Dated 12.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.128(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.128.
Ex.P.128(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.128. Ex.P.129 : Local Purchase Order No.940035 Dated 12.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.129(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.129.
Ex.P.129(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.129. Ex.P.130 : Local Purchase Order No.940042 Dated 13.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s. Southend 153 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Technologies.
Ex.P.130(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.130.
Ex.P.130(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.130. Ex.P.131 : Local Purchase Order No.940041 Dated 13.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.131(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.131.
Ex.P.131(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.131. Ex.P.132 : Local Purchase Order No.9400-- Dated 13.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.132(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.132.
Ex.P.132(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.132. Ex.P.133 : Local Purchase Order No.940052 Dated 15.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.133(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.133.
Ex.P.133(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.133. Ex.P.134 : Local Purchase Order No.940053 Dated 15.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.134(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.134.
Ex.P.134(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.134. Ex.P.135 : Local Purchase Order No.940062 Dated 21.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.135(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.135.
Ex.P.135(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.135. Ex.P.136 : Local Purchase Order No.940061 Dated 21.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.136(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.136.
Ex.P.136(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.136. Ex.P.137 : Local Purchase Order No.940072 Dated 28.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s.Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.137(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.137.
Ex.P.137(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.137. 154 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Ex.P.138 : Local Purchase Order No.940073 Dated 29.07.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s.Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.138(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.138.
Ex.P.138(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.138. Ex.P.139 : Local Purchase Order No.940092 Dated 05.08.1994 issued from CABS, DRDO to M/s. Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.139(a) : Signature of A-4 in Ex.P.139.
Ex.P.139(b) : Entry of Purchase Order Number in Ex.P.139. Ex.P.139(c) : Relevant Noting as "Repeat Order subject to clearance of First Order" in Ex.P.139.
Ex.P.140 : Consigners' Copy of Lorry Receipt No.535 Dated 31.08.1996 issued by Island Transport Corporation to Consignee-CABS A/c. of M/s.Southend Technologies. Ex.P.140(a) : Signature of the Goods received person on the back side of Ex.P.140.
Ex.P.141 : Consigners' Copy of Lorry Receipt No.534 Dated 31.08.1996 issued by Island Transport Corporation to Consignee-CABS A/c. of M/s.Southend Technologies. Ex.P.141(a) : Signature of the Goods received person on the back side of Ex.P.141.
Ex.P.142 : Consigners' Copy of Lorry Receipt No.533 Dated 31.08.1996 issued by Island Transport Corporation to Consignee-CABS A/c. of M/s.Southend Technologies. Ex.P.142(a) : Signature of the Goods received person on the back side of Ex.P.142.
Ex.P.143 : Consigners' Copy of Lorry Receipt No.532 Dated 31.08.1996 issued by Island Transport Corporation to Consignee-CABS A/c. of M/s.Southend Technologies. Ex.P.143(a) : Signature of the Goods received person on the back side of Ex.P.143.
Ex.P.144 : Consigners' Copy of Lorry Receipt No.531 Dated 31.08.1996 issued by Island Transport Corporation to Consignee-CABS A/c. of M/s.Southend Technologies. Ex.P.144(a) : Signature of the Goods received person on the back side of Ex.P.144.
Ex.P.145 : Consigners' Copy of Lorry Receipt No.530 Dated 31.08.1996 issued by Island Transport Corporation to Consignee-CABS A/c. of M/s.Southend Technologies. Ex.P.145(a) : Signature of the Goods received person on the back 155 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 side of Ex.P.145.
Ex.P.146 : Receipt Memo Dated 12.08.1998.
Ex.P.146(a) : Signature of P.W.33 in Ex.P.146. Ex.P.147 : Xerox Copy of Bill of Entry No.530 Dated 09.02.1995 and its enclosures.
Ex.P.148 : Xerox Copy of Bill of Entry No.287 Dated 23.01.1995 and its enclosures.
Ex.P.149 : Carbon Copy of Bill of Entry No.3351 Dated 19.09.1994 and its enclosures.
Ex.P.150 : Job Register maintained in M/s.Jeena & Company. Ex.P.150(a) : Entry at Pages-82 & 83 pertaining to M/s.Southend Technologies in Ex.P.150.
Ex.P.151 : Office Copy of the Goods Consignment Notes pertaining to Bill of Entry No.530.
Ex.P.152 : Office Copy of the Goods Consignment Notes pertaining to Bill of Entry No.531.
Ex.P.153 : Office Copy of the Goods Consignment Notes pertaining to Bill of Entry No.532.
Ex.P.154 : Office Copy of the Goods Consignment Notes pertaining to Bill of Entry No.533.
Ex.P.155 : Office Copy of the Goods Consignment Notes pertaining to Bill of Entry No.534.
Ex.P.156 : Office Copy of the Goods Consignment Notes pertaining to Bill of Entry No.535.
Ex.P.157 : Letter Dated 04.05.1995 from the Manager, SBI to Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station. Ex.P.157(a) : Signature of Sri.Sundar Raman in Ex.P.157. Ex.P.158 : Xerox Copy of Cheque No.090800 Dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93 Crores.
Ex.P.159 : Sanction Order Dated 24.12.1999 issued from CABS to A-3.
Ex.P.159(a) : Signature of P.W.38 in Ex.P.159. Ex.P.160 : Covering Letter Dated 24.12.1999 regarding forwardal of Ex.P.159.
Ex.P.160(a) : Signature of Security Officer-Sri.Srinivasan of DRDO in Ex.P.160.
Ex.P.161 : Letter Dated -.02.1996 from Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Madras to DRDO, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.162 : Specimen Signature Card of Joint Account of 156 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Sri.Harikumar & Smt.Uma Hari Kumar.
Ex.P.163 : Certified Copy of Extract of Statement of Account of Karnataka Bank Limited for the period from 31.05.1996 to 27.06.1998 relating to the Joint Account No.SB4837 of Sri.Harikumar & Smt.Uma Hari Kumar.
Ex.P.164 : Solvency Certificate Dated 04.11.1996 of Rs.11,00,000/- in the name of Miss Preethi Hari Kumar (daughter of Sri.Hari Kumar).
Ex.P.164(a) : Signature of P.W.41 in Ex.P.164. Ex.P.165 : Acknowledgement Dated 27.06.1998 given by the CBI Officers to Sub-Manager, Karnataka Bank Limited pertaining to Ex.P.162 & Ex.P.163.
Ex.P.165(a) : Signature of Sri.Suresh in Ex.P.165. Ex.P.166 : Joint Account Opening Form of State Bank of India bearing A/c. No.C7458 of Sri.Hari Kumar & Smt.Uma Hari Kumar.
Ex.P.167 : Certified Copy of the Statement of Account for the period from 17.10.1992 to 16.04.1998 pertaining to A/c No.17458.
Ex.P.167(a) : Signature of P.W.42 in Ex.P.167. Ex.P.167(b) : Credit Entry Dated 24.03.1995 for Rs.2 Lakhs in Ex.P.167.
Ex.P.167(c) : Deposit Entry Dated 06.10.1996 for Rs.80,000/- in Ex.P.167.
Ex.P.167(d) : Withdrawn Entry Dated 13.10.1996 for Rs.80,000/- in Ex.P.167.
Ex.P.168 : Acknowledgement Dated 27.06.1998 given by the CBI Officers to State Bank of India pertaining to Ex.P.166 & Ex.P.167.
Ex.P.168(a) : Signature of P.W.42 in Ex.P.168. Ex.P.169 : Joint Account Opening Form of Vijaya Bank bearing A/c. No.3865 of Sri.Hari Kumar & Smt.Uma Hari Kumar. Ex.P.170 : Certified Copy of Extract of Statement of Account for the period from 19.03.1996 to 20.06.1998 pertaining to Ex.P.169.
Ex.P.170(a) : Signature of Smt.Shobha Shetty in Ex.P.170. Ex.P.170(b) : Signature of Smt.Shobha Shetty in Ex.P.170. Ex.P.170(c) : Signature of Smt.Shobha Shetty in Ex.P.170. Ex.P.170(d) : Credit Entry Dated 08.07.1997 for Rs.31,790/- by way 157 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 of Cheque No.682474 in Ex.P.170.
Ex.P.170(e) : Entry Dated 10.12.1997 for Rs.70,032/-+Rs.30,000/- by way of Settlement Voucher in Ex.P.170.
Ex.P.170(f) : Credit Entry Dated 19.03.1998 for Rs.30,000/-by way of Cheque No.220856 in Ex.P.170.
Ex.P.170(g) : Deposit Entry Dated 26.05.1998 by way of Voucher No.98348 for Rs.82,080/- in Ex.P.170.
Ex.P.170(h) : Debit Entry Dated 12.06.1998 of Rs.70,000/- by way of Cheque No.794217 in Ex.P.170.
Ex.P.170(i) : Closing Balance Entry Dated 20.06.1998 for Rs.23,226=20.
Ex.P.171 : Receipt Memo Dated 28.06.1998 given by Vijaya Bank to CBI.
Ex.P.171(a) : Signature of P.W.43 in Ex.P.171. Ex.P.172 : Acknowledgement Dated 27.06.1998 given by Andhra Bank to CBI.
Ex.P.172(a) : Signature of P.W.44 in Ex.P.172. Ex.P.173 : Account Opening Form of Andhra Bank bearing A/c.No.1170 of Sri.K.Harikumar.
Ex.P.174 : Cheque No.488609 Dated 07.03.1995 for Rs.1,05,000/-
in favour of Sri.Uma Harikumar.
Ex.P.175 : Pay-in-Slip Dated 10.03.1995 for Rs.1,05,000/-. Ex.P.176 : Statement of Account of Sri.Harikumar of Andhra Bank pertaining to SB A/c. No.1170.
Ex.P.176(a) : Credit Entry Dated 10.03.1995 for Rs.1,05,000/-
pertaining to Joint Account No.1170.
Ex.P.177 : Cheque No.090800 Dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93 Crores issued in favour of M/s.Southend Technologies, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.178 : Procurement Agreement No.94/2 Dated 17.10.1994
executed between CABS and M/s.Southend
Technologies.
Ex.P.179 : Receipt Dated 15.02.1995 for Rs.4,80,000/- issued
from DRDO, CABS to M/s.Southend Technologies. Ex.P.180 : Letter Dated 04.04.1995 issued from DRDO, CABS to M/s.Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.181 : Envelope Cover from DRDO, CABS to M/s.Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.182 : Specimen Signatures of Sri.R.Sathyanarayana. 158 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Ex.P.183 : Standard Signatures of Sri.Sathyanarayana on CL/RH Application dated 13.11.95.
Ex.P.184 : Circular dated 06.03.1995 issued from CABS regarding Deduction of Income Tax from Salaries for the financial year 1995-96.
Ex.P.184(a) : Signature of P.W.49 in Ex.P.184. Ex.P.185 : Circular dated 08.02.1995 issued from CABS regarding Deduction of Income Tax from Salaries for the financial year 1994-95.
Ex.P.186 : Application for Leave or Extension of Leave of Sri.R.Sathyanarayana.
Ex.P.186(a) : Signature of P.W.49 in Ex.P.186. Ex.P.187 : Specimen Signatures of Sri.M.Janakiram. Ex.P.188 : Signatures of Sri.M.Janakiram in Inspection Report dated 10.12.1995.
Ex.P.189 : Signatures of Sri.M.Janakiram in Letter dated 11.03.1993 from CABS to Chief of Naval Staff, New Delhi.
Ex.P.190 : Standard Signatures of Sri.K.Ramachand. Ex.P.191 : Passport Index Card of Sri.K.Ramachand. Ex.P.192 : Signature of Sri.K.Ramachand in Letter dated 16.02.1995 from CABS to Smt.H.S.Kala, DGCA, New Delhi.
Ex.P.193 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Cheque No.281434 dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93 Crores.
Ex.P.194 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Cheque No.281435 dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93 Crores.
Ex.P.195 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Cheque No.281436 dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93 Crores.
Ex.P.196 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Cheque No.281437 dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93 Crores.
Ex.P.197 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Cheque No.281438 dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93 Crores.
Ex.P.198 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Cheque No.281439 dated 21.08.1995 for Rs.93 Crores.
Ex.P.199 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Envelop Cover. Ex.P.200 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Envelop Cover. Ex.P.201 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Envelop Cover. Ex.P.202 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Envelop Cover. 159 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Ex.P.203 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on Envelop Cover. Ex.P.204 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on a Sheet dated 06.06.1995.
Ex.P.205 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on a Sheet dated 04.05.1995.
Ex.P.206 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on a Sheet. Ex.P.207 : Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad on a Sheet. Ex.P.208 : Specimen Signature of Sri.K.V.Prasad on the Sheets. Ex.P.209 : Note Book of Defence Institute of Technology Management, Mussoorie containing Standard Writings of Sri.K.V.Prasad.
Ex.P.210 : Blank DRDO Letterheads.
Ex.P.211 : Specimen Impressions of Rubber Stamp Seals on the
Blank White Sheets.
Ex.P.212 : Certificate Dated 12.07.1996 issued by P.W.46
regarding Questioned Documents.
Ex.P.212(a) : Signature of P.W.46 in Ex.P.212.
Ex.P.213 : Reasons of P.W.46 for Ex.P.212.
Ex.P.213(a) : Signature of P.W.46 in Ex.P.213. Ex.P.214 : Wax Seal of FSL, Bengaluru on the Cover. Ex.P.214(a) : Signature of P.W.46 in Ex.P.214. Ex.P.215 : Transparencies for verification of Rubber Stamp Impression with respective Transparency.
Ex.P.216 : Letter Dated 08.05.1995 from P.W.48 to Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru. Ex.P.216(a) : Signature of P.W.48 in Ex.P.216. Ex.P.216(b) : Endorsement with Signature of Inspector of Police with date as '8.5.95' in Ex.P.216.
Ex.P.217 : Xerox Copy of Purported Receipt for Rs.3,05,000/-
Dated 02.12.1994 issued by CABS, DRDO to M/s.Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.218 : Xerox Copy of Purported Receipt for Rs.4,80,000/-
Dated 11/15th February 1995 issued by CABS, DRDO to M/s.Southend Technologies.
Ex.P.219 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 12.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technologies by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.220 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 12.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technologies by 160 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.221 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 12.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technologies by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.222 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order issued dated 13.07.1994 to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.223 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 13.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.224 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 13.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.225 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 13.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.226 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 15.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.227 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 15.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.228 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 21.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.229 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 21.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.230 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 28.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.231 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 29.07.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.232 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 05.08.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.233 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order dated 16.08.1994 issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.234 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
161 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.P.235 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.236 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.237 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.238 : Xerox Copy of Purported Local Purchase Order issued to M/s.South End Technology by CABS, DRDO.
Ex.P.239 : Sanction Order Dated 04.04.2000 of Office of Commissioner of Customs' House, Chennai.
Ex.P.239(a) : Signature of P.W.50 on the last page of Ex.P.239. Ex.P.240 : Letter Dated 05.04.2000 from Office of the Commissioner of Customs (SLA) to Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai.
Ex.P.241 : Sanction Order Dated 25.08.2000.
Ex.P.241(a) : Signature of P.W.51 on the last page of Ex.P.241. Ex.P.242 : Letter Dated 25.08.2000 from Office of the Commissioner of Customs to Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai.
Ex.P.243 : Sanction Order Dated 08.02.2000.
Ex.P.243(a) : Signature of P.W.52 on the 1st Page of Ex.P.243. Ex.P.243(b) : Signature of P.W.52 on the 2nd Page of Ex.P.243. Ex.P.244 : Letter Dated 11.02.2000 from Office of the Commissioner of Customs to Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai.
Ex.P.245 : FIR Dated 09.09.1996.
Ex.P.245(a) : Signature of Sri.Kamaraja in Ex.P.245. Ex.P.246 : Search List Dated 17.07.1997 pertaining to residential premises of Sri.A.Shivashankar, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.246(a) : Signature of P.W.53 in Ex.P.246. Ex.P.246(b) : Signature of Sri.Shivashankar-Proprietor of M/s.South End Technologies in Ex.P.246.
Ex.P.247 : Search List Dated 17.07.1997 pertaining to the office premises of M/s.Southend Technologies, Bengaluru. Ex.P.247(a) : Signature of P.W.53 in Ex.P.247. Ex.P.247(b) : Signature of Sri.Shivashankar in Ex.P.247. Ex.P.248 : Mahazar dated 17.07.1997 pertaining to search of Locker at Bank of India, Jayanagar Branch.
Ex.P.248(a) : Signature of P.W.53 in Ex.P.248 162 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Ex.P.249 : Mahazar dated 17.07.1997 pertaining to search of Locker at Vysya Bank, New Taragupet Branch.
Ex.P.249(a) : Signature of P.W.53 in Ex.P.249 Ex.P.250 : Xerox Copy of Duty Exemption Certificate No.CABS/1200/1/LGS/GEN Dated 31.08.1994 issued from DRDO to Collector of Customs.
Ex.P.250(a) : Initials of Sri.Sadashivam in Ex.P.250. Ex.P.251 : Red enclosed Writings of P.W.55 on the Document Dated 04.04.1995.
Ex.P.251(a) : Official Seal of P.W.55 on the Document Dated 04.04.1995.
Ex.P.252 : Red enclosed marking on the Document Dated 10.02.1994.
Ex.P.252(a) : Office Seal of P.W.55 on the Document Dated 10.02.1994.
Ex.P.253 : Official Seal and Red Enclosed Writings of P.W.55 on the Letter Dated 06.04.1994.
Ex.P.254 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Sri.Venkatesh Prasad.
Ex.P.255 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Sri.Harikumar. Ex.P.256 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Sri.Venkatesh Prasad.
Ex.P.257 : Specimen Signatures of Sri.Sathyanarayana. Ex.P.258 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Sri.Venkatesh Prasad.
Ex.P.259 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Sri.Shivashankar. Ex.P.260 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Sri.Venkatesh Prasad.
Ex.P.261 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Sri.Ramachandra.
Ex.P.262 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Sri.Venkatesh Prasad.
Ex.P.263 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Sri.Ramachand. Ex.P.264 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Sri.Sathish. Ex.P.265 : Specimen Writings and Signatures of Smt.Shantala.
Ex.P.266 : Specimen Printouts. Ex.P.267 : Opinion Dated 29.11.1999.
Ex.P.267(a) : Signature of P.W.55 in Ex.P.267. 163 Spl.CC. No.111/2000 Ex.P.267(b) : Signature of Sri.J.K.Arora in Ex.P.267. Ex.P.268 : Letter dated 29/30.11.1999 from GEQD to CBI, Chennai.
Ex.P.268(a) : Signature of P.W.55 in Ex.P.268. Ex.P.269 : Reasons for the Opinion by Sri.I.K.Arora. Ex.P.269(a) : Signature of Sri.I.K.Arora in Ex.P.269. Ex.P.270 : Certified Copies of documents in CC No.18927/96 on the File of Chief Metro Magistrate, Bengaluru. Ex.P.271 : Acknowledgement Dated 12.08.1998 for collection of documents from M/s.Trans Marine Corporation, Cochin. Ex.P.271(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.271.
Ex.P.272 : Receipt Memo Dated 13.08.1998.
Ex.P.272(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.272.
Ex.P.273 : Receipt Memo Dated 12.08.1998.
Ex.P.273(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.273. Ex.P.274 : Letter dated 12.06.1998 from P.W.56 to Inspector of Police, CBI, Chennai.
Ex.P.274(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.274. Ex.P.275 : Letter dated 24.11.1998 from Office of the Commissioner of Customs to Sri.V.Chandru, DSP, EOW, CBI, Chennai.
Ex.P.275(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.275. Ex.P.276 : Acknowledgement Dated 24.06.1998 from Sri.Tamil Mani to P.W.56.
Ex.P.276(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.276.
Ex.P.277 : Receipt Memo Dated 23.10.1999.
Ex.P.277(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.277. Ex.P.278 : Certified Copy of Charge Sheet in CC No.18927/1996. Ex.P.279 : Certified Copy of GEQD Opinion Dated 12.07.1996 produced in CC No.18927/1996.
Ex.P.280 : Receipt Memo Dated 19.01.1999.
Ex.P.280(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.280. Ex.P.281 : Letter Dated 28.08.1994 from DRDO, CABS to Chief of Naval Staff, New Delhi.
Ex.P.282 : Specimen Signature Card of A-4:Sri.Hari Kumar and Smt.Uma Harikumar pertaining to Account No.4837 Dated 13.07.1974 at Karnataka Bank, Kempegowda Road Branch, Bengaluru.
164 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.P.283 : Acknowledgement Dated 26.06.1998. Ex.P.283(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.283.
Ex.P.284 : Receipt Memo Dated 25.09.1998.
Ex.P.284(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.284. Ex.P.285 : Letter dated 01.06.1995 from DRDO to Director, CABS regarding Budget Allocation for the Financial Year 1995-
96. Ex.P.286 : Certified Copy Postal Cover addressed to M/s.South End Technologies from A-3 produced in CC No.18927/96.
Ex.P.287 : Acknowledgement Dated 24.06.1998. Ex.P.287(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.287. Ex.P.288 : Copy of Letter Dated 04.04.1995 sent by Sri.R.Sathyanarayana, Accounts Officer, CABS, DRDO, Bengaluru to M/s.South End Technologies.
Ex.P.289 : Copy of Complaint Dated 04.05.1995 addressed to Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park, Police Station, Bengaluru by Sri.R.Sunder Raman, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.290 : Acknowledgement Dated 25.06.1998 from Sri.D.S.Devendra, Branch Manager, SBI to P.W.56. Ex.P.290(a) : Signature of P.W.56 in Ex.P.290.
Ex.P.291 : FIR Dated 04.05.1995. Ex.P.292 : Copy of Search List Dated 22.05.1998 in respect of the
search in the residence premises of the Accused-4. Ex.P.293 Copy of Search List Dated 22.05.1998 in respect of the search in the residence premises of the Accused-3. Ex.P.294 : Allotment of Code to M/s.Southend Technologies (A-1)-
Annexure-II to Appendix-I dated 11.08.1993.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS:
Ex.D.1 : Indemnity Bond Dated 23.5.1994.
Ex.D.1(a) : Denied Signature of accused No.2 in Ex.D.1. Ex.D.2 : Xerox Copy of Customs' Tariff of India 1995-96 by Sri.R.K.Jain.
165 Spl.CC. No.111/2000Ex.D.3 : Original Letter of SP, CBI, Chennai Dated 15.11.1999 along with List of documents to GEQD, Hyderabad. Ex.D.4 : Copy of Letter Dated 23.04.2007 addressed to SP,CBI, EOW, Chennai from GEQD.
Ex.D.5 : Xerox Copy of Notification of the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
Ex.D.6 : Xerox Copy of Notification Government of India, Department of Revenue & Banking Dated 03.09.1976. Ex.D.7 : Xerox Copy of Notification of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Dated 13.09.1983.
Ex.D.8 : Xerox Copy of Notification of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Dated 03.07.1994.
Ex.D.9 : Xerox Copy of Notification of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Dated 09.11.1994.
Ex.D.10 : Xerox Copy of Notification of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Dated 04.09.1995.
Ex.D.11 : Xerox Copy of Notification of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Dated 22.08.1996.
Ex.D.12 : Written Submission of Director of Material Manager of Director General, DRDO.
Ex.D.13 : Xerox Copy of Notification No.136/1979 of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Dated 27.06.1979.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
MATERIAL OBJECTS PARTICULARS M.O.1 : Floppy with Covering Box M.O.2 : WIPRO Computer Printer.
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS Digitally signed by TYAGARAJA Nil NARAYAN INAVALLY DN: cn=TYAGARAJA TYAGARAJA NARAYAN INAVALLY,ou=GOVERNMENT NARAYAN OF KARNATAKA,o=HIGH COURT OF INAVALLY KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c= IN Date: 2019.12.18 15:43:20 IST (T.N. INAVALLY) XLVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases Bengaluru