Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs A-1 C.Prasad on 27 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : (SPL.COURT OF CBI CASES)
BANGALORE
C.C.No. 21056/2012
-: Present :-
Sri SABAPPA, B.Com., L.L.B.(Spl.)
XVII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
Dated : 27th day of March , 2015.
Complainant :
State by CBI, ACB, Bangalore.
[By learned Public Prosecutor, Bangalore.]
/ Versus /
Accused:-
A-1 C.Prasad
Late V.Chandrashekar, Major,
No.2618, Sector 1, 27th main, HSR Layout,
Bangalore- 560 102.
A-2 Smt.Anita Prasad
W/o C Prasad
No.2618, Sector 1, 27th main, HSR Layout,
Bangalore- 560 102.
A-3 Goutham Jangada @ Jain
S/o Late Manikchand Jangada @ Jain
"Jangada House", Warkar Street , Fort Road,
Opp. Ganesh Temple,Koppal
A-4 Rajesh Kumar Bhandari @ Raju
S/o Late BAstimal Bhandari
No.11/1-25/C, Mahtma Gandhi Chowck,Raichur.
A-5 M/s. Live Ads (India) Private Limited
No. 2618, Sector 1, 27th HSR Layout,
/2/ C.C.No. 21056/2012
Bangalore- 560 102
Rep. by A-1 Sri C. Prasad & A2
Smt. Anita Prasad as Directors.
[ By Sri. H.M.M. Adv. for A-1, A-2 and A-5, Sri C.N.A.
Adv. for A-3 and Sri C.P.M. Adv. For A-4)
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bangalore as against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) r/w/s 420, 465, 471 of IPC. Sec.132, 135, 135(A) Customs Act,1962 and Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 r/w Sec.25(1) & (2) of Fertilizer Controller Order, 1985.
2. The brief averments of the prosecution is that, M/s. Live Ads (India) Pvt. Ltd was a company incorporated with Registrar of Companies, Karnataka , Bangalore and as per the Memorandum Articles of Association, having address at No.2618, Sector 1, 27th Main, HSR layout, Bangalore and has obtained Import Export Code License vide IEC No.0700009949 from DGFT, Bangalore on 13-10-2000 and the said company carried the export of potassium chloride in the garb of Industrial Salt from ICD , Bangalore from period July 2008 to July, 2009.
3. That Accused No.1 is Director of M/s. Live Ads (India) Pvt. Ltd and accused No.2 is the wife of A-1 also Director of the said company. A-1 carried the export of Muriate of Potash in the garb of Industrial Salt /3/ C.C.No. 21056/2012 from ICD Bangalore from period July 2008 to July 2009. Accused No.1 procured the Muriate of Potash from Koppal, Raichur, Sindhanur and repacked in Warehouse at Bommasandra and electronic city and exported from ICD as Industrial Salt during July 2008 to July 2009. Warehouses at Plot No.243, Bommasandra Industrial Area, 3rd phase. Attibele hobli, Anekal Taluka, Bangalore and Plot No.10-C Electronic City Phase II, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 100 are taken on lease by A-1 from Motila and Dahanujya Rao. Accused No.1 opened bank account No. 0415201001082 at Canara Bank branch at HAL 2nd stage, Bangalore in the name of non existing firm M/s.Shree Chemicals & salt Agency, registered office at No. 199, Abdul Rehman Street, Mumbai- 400 003 having TIN No. 27180753139. It is proved from the letter of office of the Dy.Commissioner of sales tax (vigilance), "A" Wing. 8th floor, Vikirkar Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai, Accused No.1 given forged documents to Canara Bank to open an account in the name of non- existing firm M/s.Shree Chemicals and Salt Agency.
4. That, Accused No.2 is Director of. M/s. Live Ads (India) Pvt. Ltd introducer for opening of the Current Account No.416073000000901 of M/s. Live Ads (India) Pvt. Ltd (A-5 ) at South Indian Bank Limited , Koramangala Branch, Bangalore on 21-1-2008 by A-1.
/4/ C.C.No. 21056/2012
5. That, Accused No.3 is having food grain business at Koppal, and he supplied fertilizer (Muriate of Potash) to accused No.1 through Rajesh Bhandari and received amount from M/s. Live Ads (India) Pvt. Ltd., through his account . Further, it is proved that accused No.3 getting money from A-1 by opening accounts in other name i.e. Account No. SB 01001977 of Veeranna, A /c No.SB 01000683 of Aswhin Mahaveerachand Jangada , A /c No.SB 01001933 of Maruti Devappa Nayak, A /c No.SB 01001932 of Mallappa Annigeri by Goutham Jangada and they are working under Goutham Jangada. He opened the bank accounts in his workers name to get payment from M/s. Live Ads (India) Pvt. Ltd. for supply/arrange of fertilizer (Muriate of Potash).
6. That, Accused No.4 introduced Vikram Sakalecha fertilizer dealer having M/s.Abhay Agro Service in Sindhanur and Goutham Jangada of Koppal to A-1 for supply of Muriate of Potash. Rajesh Bhandari asked the Mr.Srinivas, Veerakumar, Haranna @ Iranna and Sri Magdoom Sab to open the accounts, after opening of Mr.Srinivas's current account No.1323.115.240, Mr.Veerkumar's Current Account No.1323.115.252, Mr.Magdoom Sab's Current Account No.1323.115.330. Mr. Hranna's are operated by Rajesh Bhandari and they are working with Rajesh Bhandari. He used these accounts for get money for supply/arrange of Muriate of potash to A-1. Rajesh Bhandari arranged warehouse at Plot No.243, Bommasandra Industrial Area, 3rd /5/ C.C.No. 21056/2012 phase, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Tq., Bangalore to A-1 from his distant relative one Motilal from Bangalore to store and repacking of Muriate of Potash and same material is exported by M/s. Live Ads (India) Pvt. Ltd through ICD, Whitefield, Bangalore in name Industrial Salt.
7. Muriate of Potash (MOP) which is also called as potassium chloride is an imported product. As per Government of India Notification No.30(RE-2003)/2002-2007 dated 28th January, 2004, the exports of Muriate of Potash is restricted and export is permitted under license except in the following cases: (a) exports permitted freely by durect importers of MOP out of quantity of import made during last 6 months subject to the following conditions:(i) they will not claim any concession for the quantity intended to be exported or (ii) they will return the concession if already claimed from the Government and (b) furnish certificate from the statutory auditors to the Departments of Fertilizers and Customs that the quantity intended to be exported has been imported in the last six months and no concession/subsidy has been claimed and ( c) export realization in free foreign exchange only. As per section7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 r/w Sec.25(1) and (2) of Fertilizer Control Order 1985 , no person shall, except with the prior permission of the Central Government and subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by such Government, /6/ C.C.No. 21056/2012 sell or use of fertilizer for the purpose of other than fertilization of soils and increasing productivity of crops.
8. That, M/s. Live Ads(India) Private Limited did not possess requisite licence for import/export of Muriate of Potash. On 16-7-2009 accused No.1 , Director of M/s. Live Ads(India) Private Limited., submitted the Shipping bill Nos. 2240092, 2240093 and 2240095 dated 16-7-2009 with invoices and packing lists dated 2-5-2009 through his CHA M/s. Chakiat Agencies, for export of consignment of 750-MT of Muriate of Potash (MOP) in the grab of Industrial salt to Malaysia. Accused No.1 handed over the only 550 MT of consignment Muriate of Potash (MOP) under the garb of industrial salt by false declaration vide three shipping bills Nos. 2240095, 2240092 and 2240093 dated 16-7- 2009 to Malaysia at Inland Cargo Depot of Customs Department, Whitefield ,Bangalore for export packed in 11000 bags of 50 kgs each in 22 containers. Along with invoice he has also handed over the packing list of the consignment, export value declaration and self declaation form and all these forms were furnished by A-1. M/s. Live Ads(India) Private Limited fraudulently and dishonestly tried to export 550 metric tons of Muriate of Potash which is coded as CTH 31042000 by customs department under the garb of industrial salt as per code CTH 28273990 and thereby violated the notification No.30(RE- 2003)/2002-2007 dated 28-1-2004 of Director General Foreign Trade of /7/ C.C.No. 21056/2012 Government of India and Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodites Act 1955 r/w/Sec.25(1) and (2) of Fertilizer Control Order 1985. The Potassium Chloride (Muriate of Potash ) is imported and subsidy rate given by Govt.of India during period January 2007 to December, 2009 Rs.6758/- to Rs.29804/- MT.
9. That, G.Ramasway, Agricultural Officer of K.R.Puram, Govt. of Karnataka had drawn random samples from 3 containers in the presence of representative of Chakiat Agencies, the custom house agent of M/s. Live Ads(India) Private Limited on 21-8-2009 and sent the same to the Dy.Director of Agriculture, Fertilizer Control Laboratory, Bangalore for testing the samples. The samples were tested at the Ferilizer control Laboratory of Agriculture Department of Govt. of Karnataka, Bangalore and the Dy.Director of Agriculture in 3 reports dated 01-9-2009 has mentioned that the sample is Muriate of Potash and the sample is according to specification.
10. That M/s. Live Ads(India) Private Limited and A1 to A4 has entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Govt. of India in the matter of exporting Muriate of Potash without refunding the subsidy granted by the Govt. of India, which is a restricted item for export. M/s. Live Ads(India) Private Limited and its Directors exported Potassium Chloride ( Muriate of Potash ) by falsely declaring the same as industrial salt, thereby causing a wrongful loss to the Govt. of India /8/ C.C.No. 21056/2012 to the tune of Rs.26.8 crores and the corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons. .Hence, this charge sheet is filed.
11. After receiving the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and summons was issued to the accused persons . In response to the summons, accused persons are appeared before this Court and they were released on bail. Thereafter a copy of the charge sheet is served on the accused U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. In the meantime, the accused No. 2 and 3 filed an application u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. to discharge the accused in this case. It is objected by the prosecution by filing objection statement. Later on this Court passed the necessary orders and the application filed by the accused No.2 and 3 u/s.227 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected. After hearing, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) r/w/s 420, 465, 471 of IPC. and Sec.132, 135, 135(A) of Customs Act, 1962 and Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) E.C.Act, 1955 r/w Sec.25(1) & (2) of Fertilizer Controller Order, 1985. As the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claims to be trial, hence case was posted for evidence, the prosecution has examined in all 55 witnesses as PWs 1 to 55 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P559 and Ex.D-1 & 2 documents and closed its side. 313 statement of accused persons were recorded and the accused persons have denied all the incriminating evidence adduced inn this case. Accused No.1 /9/ C.C.No. 21056/2012 is examined as DW-1. No documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.
12. Heard the arguments of learned APP for the CBI and Ld. Advocates appearing for the accused persons.
13. The points that arise for my consideration are :
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that A-1 and A-2 being the Directors of M/s. Live Ads India Pvt.Ltd have filed an application for registration of the company at Registrar of companies and registered it on 5-6-2000 vide registration No.08/2718/2000 and also filed an application before DGFT, Bangalore for obtaining import and export code and obtained IEC No.0700009949 from DGFT, Bangalore on 13-10-2000. Accused also filed an application before local VAT office 015 Vanijya Therige Karayalay, Koramangala and got TIN No.29640319372 with effect from 1-4-2005 and they entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused and carried out the export of Muriate of potash in the garb of industrial salt from ICD, Bangalore from period July 2008 to July 2009 and procured the Muriate of potash from Koppal, Raichur, Sindhanur and repacked in Warehouse at Bommasandra and Electronic City and exported from ICD as industrial salt during above said period. Accused have taken on lease the Warehouse at Plot No.243, Bommasandra Industrial Area, 3rd phase, Attibele Hobli, Anekal / 10 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Tq.Bangalore at Plot No.10-C ,Electronic city phase II, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 100 from Motila and Dahananjaya Rao. Thereafter they opened bank account No.0415201001082 at Canara Bank in the name of non existing firm by name M/s. Shree Chemicals and salt Agency, regd. Office at No.199, Abdul Rehman street, Mumbai- 400 003 having TIN No. 27180753139 and they have given forged documents to Canara Bank to open an account in the name non existing firm M/s. Shree Chemicals and Salt Agency. By the above act, accused persons have caused a wrongful loss of Rs.26.8 crores to the Government of India and wrongfully gained for themselves and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 120-B r/w 420, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal code Sec. 132, 135 and 135(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sec. 7(1)(a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Sec.25(1)&(2) of Fertilizer Control Order 1985?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that A-1 being the Director of M/s. Live Ads (India) Pvt.Ltd have not obtained necessary license for import and export of Muriate of potash. On 16-7-2009 A-1 submitted the shipping Bill Nos. 2240092, 2240093 and 2240095 dated 16-7-2009 with invoices and Packing lists bearing no.LAIPL/EXPORT/115-03/09-10 dated 02-5-2009, LAIPL/EXPORT/115-02/09-10 dated 2-5-2009 and LAIPL/EXPORT/115-04/09-10 dated 2-5-2009 through accused's clearing house Agent M/s. Chakiat Agencies ,for / 11 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 export of consignment of 750-MR of Muriate of Potash in the garb of industrial salt by false declaration vide above mentioned three shipping bills dated 16-7-2009 to Malaysia at Inland Cargo depot of Customs Department, whitefield, Bangalore for export packed in 11000 bags of 50 kgs. each in 22 containers. Along with the invoices accused also handed over the packing list of the consignment, export value declaration and self declaration form and all these forms were furnished. A-1 along with A2 to 4 entered into criminal conspiracy and fraudulently and dishonestly tried to export 550 metric tones of Muriate of potash which is coded at CTH 28273990 and thereby violated the notification No.30(RE-2003)2002-2007 dated 28-1-2004 of Director General Foreign Trade of Govt.of India accused persons have caused a wrongful loss of Rs.26.8 crores to the Government of India and wrongfully gained for themselves and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 120-B r/w 420, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal code Sec. 132, 135 and 135(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sec. 7(1)(a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Sec.25(1) &(2) of Fertilizer Control Order 1985 ?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, A-2 being the Director of the above said firm entered into criminal conspiracy with A1, A3 and A4 and introduced opening of the Current Account of the M/s. Live Ads Pvt. Ltd which was opened by A-1 at South India Bank Ltd., Koramangala Branch, Bangalore on 21-1-2008 / 12 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 for the purpose of carrying out the above transaction pertaining to export of Muriate of potash without refunding the subsidy granted by Govt. Of India which is a restricted item for export and therefore caused a wrongful loss to Govt. of India to the tune of Rs.26.8 Crores and the corresponding wrongful gain to themselves and accused also actively involved in the day-to-day transaction and affairs of M/s. Live Ads and the current account of the said company was jointly operated by above accused persons along with A-1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 120-B r/w 420, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal code Sec. 132, 135 and 135(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sec. 7(1)(a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Sec.25(1) &(2) of Fertilizer Control Order 1985 ?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that A-3 had entered into criminal conspiracy with A-1, A-2 and A-4 and he had supplied fertilizer to A-1 through A-4 and received amount from M/s. Live Ads through his account. Accused also got money from A-1 by opening account in others name i.e. account No.SB 01001977 stands in the name of Veeranna. Account No. SB 01000683 stands in the name of Ashwin Mahaveerchand Jangada, A/c No. SB 01001933 stand in the name of Maruti Devapa Nayak. Account No. SB 01001932 stands in the name of Mallappa Annigri who were working under him. Accused also opened bank accounts in the name of / 13 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 his employees to get payment from M/s. Live Ads for the supply of fertilizer. By the above act accused caused wrongful loss of Rs.26.8 crores to the Government of India and wrongfully gained for themselves and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 120-B r/w 420, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal code Sec. 132, 135 and 135(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sec. 7(1)(a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Sec.25(1) &(2) of Fertilizer Control Order 1985?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that A-4 introduced Vikram Sakalecha fertilizer dealer who is the proprietor of M/s Abhay Agro Services in Sindhanur and A-3 Goutham Jangada of Koppal to A-1 for supply of muriate of potash. Accused also asked Mr.Srinivas, Veerakumar Haranna @ Iranna and Sri Magdoom sab to open the accounts. Accordingly, the accounts were opened in the name of Mr.Srinivasa bearing current account No.1323 115 240. . Mr. Veerkumar bearing current account No.1323 115 252. Mr. Magdoom sab's bearing current account No. 1323 115330 . Mr. Haranna's account is opened by accused. Accused has used these accounts to get money for supply of Muriate of potash to A-1. Further, A-4 also arranged warehouse at plot No.243, Bommasandra Indl.area, 3rd phase, Attibele HObli, Anekal Tq. Bangalore to A-1 from his distant relative one Motilal from Bangalore to Store and repacking of muriate of potash and the same material is exported by M/s.Live Ads / 14 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 through ICD, whitefield , Bangalore in name of Industrial Salt and therefore caused a wrongful loss to Govt. Of India to the tune of Rs.26.8 crores and the corresponding wrongful gain to themselves and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 120-B r/w 420, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal code Sec. 132, 135 and 135(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sec. 7(1)(a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Sec.25(1) &(2) of Fertilizer Control Order 1985 ?
6) What order ?
My findings to the above points are as follows :
Point No.1 : - In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 :- In the Affirmative.
Point No.3 :- In the Negative Point No.4 :- In the Negative.
Point No.5 :- In the Negative.
Point No.6 :- As per the final order for the following :
REASONS
14. Points No. 1 and 2 :- As these two points are inter- linked with each other, I have taken both the points together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of the facts and circumstances of the case.
/ 15 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
15. The Ld.A.P.P. vehemently argued and submitted that A-1 and A-2 are the Directors of A-5 company . Accused No.1 violated the Notification issued by the Government as well as he has exported Muriate of Potash (MOP) on the guise of Industrial Salt. Accused No.2 has introduced A-1 for opening the account in the bank. Accused No.3 has supplied the M O P through Accused No.4. Accused No.4 introduced one Vikram and A-3 to A-1 for supply of Muriate of Potash . Accused NO.3 and 4 are opened the account in the name of their employees and they have obtained amount from A-5 company. Accused No.1 exported the Muriate of Potash through Chakiat Agencies through ICD, to Malaysia. The evidence of Chakiat officials examined in this case as PW-5, PW9 and PW10 are clearly spoken about the material consignment supplied by A-1 to ICD as well as they have mentioned the name of item in all the consignment as per the declaration made by A-1. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-55 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P559. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as documents clearly established that, A-1 has obtained the restricted item muriate of potash through A-3 and A-4 and it is exported as an industrial salt by means of misdeclaration in the consignment receipt. All the witnesses are categorically deposed about the material exported by A-1 is Muriate of Potash is not an / 16 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 industrial salt. The oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses as well as documents clearly established that, accused has exported restricted item in order to violate the Notification issued by the Central Government as well as he has made loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.26.5 Crores. The prosecution is able to examine all the material witnesses as well as furnished sufficient documents to prove the allegations against the accused persons. There are minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses . Those are not material to discard the entire case of the prosecution. The prosecution witnesses are clearly spoken about the act of the accused as well as A-1 has caused loss to the tune of Rs.26.5 Crores to the Central Government. On the other hand, the accused is not able to demonstrate that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused . As such, the accused may be convicted in the interest of justice and equity.
16. The Ld. Counsel for A-1 and A-2 vehemently argued and submitted that though prosecution has made several allegations against the accused but the prosecution has not filed charge sheet against the pubic servant who are involved in this case. More over, the I.O. who has conducted the investigation stated that, he has received the source of information and investigated the matter and submitted the / 17 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 chargesheet, but he has not disclosed what are the sources collected by the Investigating officer. As per the evidence of the prosecution , none of the consignment gone without test report . The accused NO.1 whenever he is going to export the material, he has affixed the test report it is well known by the customs department. The export item which is mentioned in the consignment is not the item of muriate of potash. It is a combination of chemicals, it has to be used as an Industrial salt by the foreign country. The admission given by the prosecution witnesses are clearly noticed that, the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As per the earlier report issued by the Bangalore Test House as well as Chennai Test Report clearly reveals that material which was exported by the A-1 is the Industrial Salt. The prosecution has examined so many witnesses, however, they are not able to speak abut the allegations against the accused. Some of the witnesses have pleaded their ignorance. Some of the witnesses are turned hostile. The Investigating officer who has conducted the investigation during the course of cross examination has given so many admissions. The materials placed by the prosecution are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.1, 2 and 5 beyond all reasonable doubt. More over, the I.O. has not examined the person who has supplied the materials to A-5 company. For the sake of arguments, though the Muriate of / 18 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Potash is restricted item as per the Government Notifications, the said items has to be supplied by the Government to the registered dealer then the dealers has to supply to the farmers. Such being the case, the prosecution is not able to furnish any documents to show that, the Government of India has supplied the alleged materials to the Registered Dealers. Then the A-1 has purchased the said material and exported to the foreign country. There is no documentary evidence by the side of the prosecution to show that the Govt.has supplied the restricted items Muriate of Potash to registered dealers. As such, the quantum of material mentioned in the chargesheet as well as ascertain the value of the said material is not in accordance with law. There is no specific rate which is mentioned in the charge sheet to show exact what amount is caused loss to the Govt. by the accused. Merely, three consignment of A-1 seized in the ICD.,, Bangalore as well as the CBI officials have taken the samples in order to examine the material. He further submit at the time of obtaining the materials belonging to A-1 at ICD, it has to be intimate by the officer to A-1. It is not done so. There are so many irregularities committed by the I.O. All these facts has to be elicited during the course of cross examination. More over the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as documents furnished in this case are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.1, 2, / 19 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 5 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A-1, A-2 and A-5 may be acquitted in the interest of justice and equity.
17. The Ld.counsel for Accused No.3 submitted written arguments and stated that, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as documents marked at Ex.P164 to Ex.P-276 concerned to this accused are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence of PW 23, 29, 32, 43, 40 and 55 are clearly disclose tha,t this accused is not possible to commit offence as stated by the prosecution hence, accused No.3 may be acquitted in the interest of justice and equity.
18. The A-4 vehemently argued and submitted that, he is totally innocent. One Sanjeev Motha and A-3 contact with A-1 and doing the business. Further he was not aware of the fact that, what business A-1 was doing. He has not transported any material to A-1 as stated by the prosecution. He has not received any amount from his personal account through A-5. He has no knowledge about the business of Muriate of Potash made by A-5 company. He has not visited Koppal and asked A-3 to supply Muriate of Potash and he is not doing the business as stated by the prosecution. He further submits that, though prosecution examined so many witnesses and got marked documents, however / 20 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 those documents are not related to him as well as panchanama conducted by the official witness never disclose that he is having any document in order to supply Muriate of Potash to A-5. On these grounds, he may be acquitted in the interest of justice and equity.
19. I have gone through the facts of the case as well as evidence and documents relied by the prosecution against A-1, A-2 and A-5. It is the case of the prosecution that, A-1 and A-2 are being the Directors of A-5 company have filed an application for Registration of the company at Registrar of companies and it is registered on 5-6-2000 for obtaining Import and Export Code No. 0700009949. They have also filed an application before VAT office and obtained TIN Number. They have entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused and exported Muriate of Potash in the garb of industrial salt from ICD, Bangalore from July 2008 to July 2009 and procured Muriate of Potash (MOP)from koppal, Koppal, Raichur, Sindhanur and repacked in Warehouse at Bommasandra and electronic city and exported from ICD to Malaysia. It is the further case of the prosecution that, A-1 and A-2 have opened Bank account at Canara Bank in the name of non-existing company M/s.Sri Chemicals and Salt Agencies and they have given forged documents to Canara Bank to open the account in the name of non- existing firm and they have caused loss of Rs.26.8 Crores to Govt. of / 21 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 India. In order to prove the above allegations, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 55 and got marked Ex.P7 to 559.
20. Now I would like to refer to the evidence of PW-1 to 15, 17 to 22, 26, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 51 to 55 and refer the documents got marked at Ex.P1 to 163, Ex.P435 to 444, Ex.P455 to Ex.P459, Ex.P524 to 532 , Ex.P536 to Ex.P538 and Ex.P549 to 559.
21. Now I would like to refer to the evidence of PW1, he has deposed about the registration of the Firm as well as documents which are marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. Before discussing about the oral evidence of this witness, I would like to refer to the documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P23
22. Ex.P1 letter written by PW1 to IO/CBI. Ex.P2 to 4 are Notification of Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce and Department of Commerce. As per these three documents, it is noticed Muriate of Potash is an restricted item. It has to be exported under permit or license by any person. Ex.P5 is the CHAP XXX1 of the Fertilization Act. Ex.P6 is the letter dated Ex.P6 is the letter dated 5-3-2010 issued by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs. These documents noticed that all Notification, it is revealed that Exporter has mis-declared the export / 22 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 product as industrial salt and has indeed attempted to export Muriate of Potash fertilizer which has been in violation of FTP without obtaining requisite or availing any of the conditions laid down in the Fertilizer Control Order. Exporter has exported consignment in the post too as there is blatant mis-declared violation of the restriction imposed in the FTP. It is noticed that Export Code 0700009949 issued to the above Exporter as cancelled forthwith. It seems that the commissioner of customs has recommended to the JDGFT to cancel license in the name of A-5. Ex.P7 Audit report, Ex.P8 Sec. 5 products of the Chemical or Allied Industries. Ex.P9 contents of schedule No.1 Import policy, Ex.P10 Appendix to 2A, Ex.P11 is Appendix to 11-A. These two documents noticed that A-1 applied for export license in the name of A-5. Ex.P12 receipt issued by the Customs Department noticed that A-1 has deposited Rs.1,000/- for obtaining permission as per the requirements. Ex.P13 acknowledgment. Ex.P14 is the Allotment letter issued in favour of A-5 Ex.P15 check sheet given for Import and Export Code Number. Ex.P16 is the forwarding letter by Customs department to A-5. Ex.P17 is Declaration submitted by A-5. Ex.P18 Certificate issued from HBC Bank in favour of A-5 Company. Ex.P19 is the Allotment of PAN number in favour of A-5. Ex.P20 is Memorandum of Association and Articles and Association in the name of A-5. Ex.P21 covering letter sent by this witness to the C.B.I. Ex.P22 is the seizure Memo. Ex.P23 letter issued / 23 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 by the customs department to the CBI. These documents as well as oral testimony of PW-1 disclose that there was conversation letter in between the Customs Department as well as A-5 through A-1.
24. These documents reflected that accused No.1 and 2 obtained the license for export of Industrial Salt but the material which was exported by the accused No.1 and 2 is MOP. The cross examination conducted by the accused counsel indicates that, the witness has produced the documents as per the request letter of the CBI.
25. Now I would like to refer to the prosecution evidence of PW2, he deposed that, the customs office of Bangalore has sent the samples of the chemicals for analysis. He has conducted the analysis and submitted the report which is marked at Ex.P24 and covering letters and letter of customs office marked at Ex.P25 and Ex.P26. During the course of cross-examination, he deposed that the document produced by me does not speaks about the samples sent for testing was in the required standard. I do not know, the samples drawn and sent for testing was packed as per required standard. As per Ex.P24 it is not possible to say what are the tests conducted to arrive at this result. Ex.P25 is the reference letter given by the Customs / 24 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Department. I have not conducted tests to find out nature and composition of the samples send by the Customs Department. I have not conducted the test in the presence of customs Department nor who had supplied the materials. It is true that I have no personal knowledge about the procedure followed in getting the test report. I verified and submitted the report. It is true that I can only speak on the report marked at Ex.P24 and I do not speak on the authenticity or correctness of Ex.P24. This admission indicates that he has not personally conducted the test report, the other officials are conducted the test. He has put the signature as an officer. He further deposed that I am aware about the Potassium Chloride has industrial applications. It is true that solubility test is not conducted to arrive at this result. Though, the witness given same admission during the cross- examination about test of the materials sent by the Customs Department. The document marked at Ex.P24 clearly indicates that the PW2 officials after testing materials came to know the materials, which was sent by the Custom is potassium chloride, it is mentioned in the report. The evidence of PW2 is not possible to discard as he has given admission during the course of evidence. The material documents is available on record reflect that the material which was tested by the PW2official is the potassium chloride. In order to discard this document there are no other documentary evidence on record. Moreover, / 25 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 the PW2 is not personally conducted the test itself does not mean that the test report mentioned in Ex.P24 is not conducted by the office of PW2.
26. Now I would like to refer to the evidence of PW3, he has categorically deposed that he has conducted the chemical composition received from Customs office and mentioned the composition which is analysis by him as per Ex.P24. The observation in Ex.P24 is that since the material is white in nature, free flowing with no impurities and purity of KCI content is above 98% it falls in the category of potassium chloride, technical grade. During the course of cross-examination conducted by the accused counsel he has deposed that I have not directly received samples from the Customs Department. There is no sample packing specification test before subjecting the samples to test. He voluntarily states that they only see the condition of the material. It is true that the chemical composition in the given sample varies, if it is not properly packed as per standard norms. He further deposed that, I have tested the samples which are inorganic in nature. I have conducted the test, verified means the result in written format from the lab is given to the office for typing to prepare test report. I have not produced any document in support of observation made in Ex.P24. It is true that on Ex.P24 it is not possible to say what are the fool proof / 26 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 test methods adopted while giving this observation as per Ex.P24. He has not produced any document to show that he has adopted the system of preserving the samples and analysis data for 2 years. It is true that, I am working as Chemist in the lab. It is true that I do not know whether the samples and analysis data would be asked by customs or CBI within a given time. It is true that Ex.P25 does not contain my signature. It is true that I have not given any documents to show that our lab is having authority to test samples. It is true that I have not conducted the solubility test. Though there is a same version of PW2, but this witness is personally conducted the test and submitted the report as per Ex.P24. Merely the lab is not conducted the solubility test itself does not mean that it is not conducted by this witness. PW3 is being the Chemist GML in Bangalore. He has conducted the test and submitted the report. Though the cross-examination by the accused counsel is not possible to discard the evidence of this witness. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 is corroborate with each other.
27. I would like to refer the evidence of PW4, he deposed that, they have received the requisition from Live Ads for test of Potassium Chloride. He has identified the requisition letter marked as Ex.P27. They have tested the samples and given report to customer, the said report is marked as Ex.P28. There finding is that the sample which they / 27 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 have analyze is that of Potassium Chloride. He has identified another requisition submitted by the A-5, as well as analysis report these are marked at Ex.P29 to Ex.P34 and Ex.P35 to Ex.P42. The Bills payment documents also marked at Ex.P43 to Ex.P50. Receipt memo marked as Ex.P51 and Ex.P52. Though Learned Counsel for the accused cross-examined this witness tried to elicit that, the analysis report is not conducted properly. However the witness deposed that as per the test report the material which was sent by the A-5 company is Potassium Chloride. He further deposed that whatever report chemist is given it is mentioned in the report. It is true that one has to verify reference to the entries in the lab note book whether the entries made in the test report are correct or not. The analyst who has given report in this case is not working now. After completion of the test they have send the report to the requisitionsist by courier or by person. The oral testimony of the witnesses and documents marked at Ex.P24 to Ex.P50 are corroborated with each other. At this stage I would like to refer these documents clearly indicates that A-5 company has given requisition, as well as produced samples for testing, it is conducted by PW-4 and issued the report clearly noticed that, the samples which was sent by the A-5 is the Potassium Chloride, it is never disputed by the accused. During the course of trial, it is further noticed as per Ex.P30 to 42 are the test reports samples which they analyze clearly noticed / 28 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 that Potassium Chloride percentage about average 99%. The documents P43 to 50 reports issued by the Bangalore test house indicates they have charge the analysis report and it is paid by the A-5 as per P-53. I perused all the documents oral testimony of the PW4 one thing clear the material which was sent by A5 is the Potassium Chloride. But not industrial salt, though Learned counsel for the accused tried to elicit something to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, however the evidence of the PW4 does not discloses that, he has made any material admission to disprove the case of prosecution. But the material which was exported by the A-5 company through ICD is Potassium Chloride as restricted item.
28. Now I would like to refer the evidence of PW5 he deposed that he know the accused No.1 and 5. He has identified the accused also the accused No.1 has instructed to prepare the invoice and packing list to export the materials. As per instructions of A-1 he has prepare the invoice and packing list. Accordingly in the shipping bills they have to insert the code as "HS". They have received the materials through trucks at ICD Whitefield. He has also identified the documents marked at Ex.P63 to 102 shipping bills which are generated at ICD, Whitefield office, customs. They have exported the cargo by Bill of Lading. They have received the lab test report, they came to know / 29 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 that the item exported by exporter through their agency was Muriate of Potash (MOP) and not Industrial salt. This witness is also cross- examined by the counsel, at that time, he deposed that he is facilitator of A-1 to export cargo. It is true that he processed the export documents. It is true that at the time of processing the export documents verified the lab test report. It shows as Industrial Salt. The witness further states that, the customs Deportment has insisted to draw samples. Accordingly he drew samples in presence of the customs officers. The customs Deportment has not issued any letter to draw the samples. The customs officer has not drawn the samples in the presence of the exporter. It is true that even after the test report customs Deportment as allowed A1 to export the cargo. The evidence of the witness is also corroborates with the document marked at Ex.P63 to 102. More over the test report is annexed with sample bills admitted by the witnesses does not mean that, the material which was exported by the A-5 company is the Industrial Salt. The document already marked through PW4 at Ex.P32 to 40 are reports which are the own documents of A5. In these documents it is clearly noticed that, the material which was exported A5 is the Potassium Chloride. As per the documents and oral evidence of these witnesses it is noticed that, the accused No.1 has intention to cheat the Government as well the customs authority. He has misdeclared the item which was exported / 30 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 to the Foreign country as industrial salt. Industrial salt is not registered item. But Muriate of Potash (MOP) is restricted item. This evidence is also corroborative with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses.
29. Now I would like to discuss about evidence of PW6, he deposed that as per request of the CBI, he submit some documents which are available in the office are the certified copies, he also identified the seizure memo prepared by the customs officials which is marked as Ex.P54. He identified the letter written by him to inspector CBI stating that he has authorized K.V.Srinivas Prasad to hand over the documents to CBI. Covering letter marked as Ex.P55. The list of documents as well as invoices, packing list and certificates issued under sec.65(B) Evidence Act. Customs manual relevant circulars, lists, test memo, notifications which are also marked in this case are handover to the CBI. Muriate of Potash (MOP) cannot be exported without the permission of DGFT and the exporter has to get license from this. This witness cross-examined by the accused counsel, he has tried to elicit something to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. However the evidence of this witness is not indicates that, he has given any admission in favour of the accused. He further deposed the shipping bill prepared by him at the request of A-1 discloses not restricted item, as per documents he do not know samples which was drawn by / 31 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Agricultural Department which was M O P. It is true that he has not signed on the Ex.P54. He do not know Customs Department is aware about the item exported by the A-5 is Industrial Salt. He voluntarily deposed that at the particular time he was not there.
30. Now I would to refer the evidence of PW7, he deposed that he was working as technical manager in Bangalore test house. They were conduct tests for food, chemicals, water, soil and pharmaceuticals. The CBI asked to handover test reports and invoices which were marked as Ex.P52 and signature is Ex.P52(a). A5 has sent materials to their laboratory for testing the Potassium Chloride contents. They have analysis the samples and issued the reports. The same is already marked as Ex.P32 to 42. During the course of cross- examination he deposed that, it is true that I do not know the test report marked as Ex.P32 to 42. It is true that I cannot speak about the correctness or authenticity of the report. I am having license but I have not produced the same if it is required I am ready to furnish. As per report solubility test is done by our lab. It is true that I have not furnished the note of the technician in support of the report. It is true that I do not know for what purpose these test reports are called by the CBI. The evidence of this witness noticed that, he submit the test report issued by the laboratory clearly indicates that material which was examined by the lab technician is the Potassium Chloride. He has / 32 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 shown ignorance of Ex.P32 to 42. This witness is also support the case of the prosecution. The material which was exported by the A-5 company is the Potassium Chloride not Industrial Salt.
31. Now I would like to refer the evidence of PW8 he has recorded the statement of A-1 under sec.108 of Customs Act, As per instructions of Commissioner of customs. The same is marked at Ex.P61 signature is Ex.P61(A). As per the instructions of Superintendent of Customs, he has conducted seizure of goods from ICD, Whitefield in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter he has prepared the mahazar it is marked at Ex.P62 and signatures as Ex.P62(A). The samples which was drawn from the ICD container belongs to A5. The said container consists shipping bills belongs to A5. Thereafter, this document are handedover to the superior officer. This witness was also cross- examined from the Counsel. He has deposed that I have seized the container in the presence of Customs Department. I have not seized the sample in the presence of A1. I have followed the instructions of Higher officers. I have not a party to the mahazar conducted at the time of taking the samples for testing. After recording the statement I have handed over case file to superior officer. This evidence indicates that he has conducted the mahazar at ICD as well as recorded the statement of A1 under sec.108 of Customs Act. The accused never / 33 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 denied about the recording the statements under sec.108 of Customs Act by this witness. There is no dispute about the mahazar conducted by this witness in the ICD in presence of the Customs Officer as well as CHA agents.
32. PW9 deposed that the Customs authority has given license to their agency for Import and Export of shipments. He has received the documents from the exporter and after checking the same he will generate the shipping bills, he will take all the documents and submit it to registration section. Then inspector will examine the documents and items and submit the Superindent section. He further deposed that he know the A5 as well as A1 and A1 is the director of A5, as per export shipment, the exporter has to furnish information, Accordingly he has written in the shipping bills. He has identified the shipping bills, invoice, packing list which are already marked as Ex.P63 to Ex.P102. In the month of April 09 Agricultural Officer came to their office and took the samples, at that time they have prepared form 'J' it is marked as Ex.P103, his signature is P-103(a). They have taken 3 samples in one container belongs to A1. He has identified the 'J' and 'K' form prepared by the officers, at the time of taking the samples for testing in the container belongs to A5. They were marked as Ex.P104 to Ex.P109. He has also identified the samples taken by the Agricultural / 34 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 officer marked at Ex.P111 to Ex.P113. Covering letter Ex.P114 signature of the manager Ex.P114(A). Statement of bill details marked as Ex.P115. This witness also cross-examined by the accused counsel. He has deposed that in presence of exporter the Agricultural officials have not drawn the samples at the time of preparing the shipping bills, exporters having submitted the test report. He facilitated export material submitted by the A1, the deportment suspects the materials which was exported by the A1. They can draw the samples and send for testing. He has deposed about the procedure conducted by the Customs Department at the time of exporting material produced by the exporter. The entire evidence clearly indicates that, on the information furnished by the A1 he has mentioned in the shipping bills, packing list and all other documents which are already marked as Ex.P63 to Ex.P103. These documents clearly indicates, the A1 mentioned the export material as Industrial Salt. But as per test report it is clearly noticed that, the material which was exported by the A1 is the Muriate of Potash (MOP). It is restricted item by the central Government.
33. Now I would like to refer the evidence of PW10. He is working as Senior Supervisor in Operations Division, in Container corp.
of India Ltd., Whitefield, Bangalore. He has deposed about the
/ 35 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
procedure of exporting the cargo whenever comes to ICD., it has to accompanied by the shipping bills , check list and the invoice copy along with other documents. After receiving these documents they ask the exporter to give the request for taking this cargo into the warehouse. If it is taken to warehouse they have to take the permission of customs Department. He further deposed A5 had sent cargo for them for export. It has been exported by rail through their Container Corp. CBI has asked them for further details of export application for permits and shipping bills copies of A5. He has handed over these documents. The covering letter marked in Ex.P116 and the remaining documents Ex.P117 to Ex.P119. He has also identified the seizure memo marked as Ex.P120 signatures 120(A). He has also identified 3 export application marked as EX.P120 to Ex.P123. Security register as Ex.P124 and Ex.P125. This witness is also cross-examined by the accused counsel at that time he deposed as per shipping bills, export item Industrial salt. It is true that Industrial salt is permitted to be exported after the customs conducted the inspection. I do not know the inspection shall mean and include getting the test report from the lab. It is true that in all export application slips and the item sought to be exported was industrial salt when once permitted to be stuffed cargo into the container it goes without saying that it is not a restricted item. This evidence indicates that, this witness though he is working / 36 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 in the customs Deportment as Supervisor. He has deposed about the procedure about for export of cargo. Further the item which was exported by the A1 is mentioned in the records as Industrial salt. As per the records he deposed that the item which was exported by A1 in the Industrial salt. Anything to be elicited by the accused counsel that the item which was drawn for testing is not at all belongs to the accused No.1 as well as test report is confronted to the witnesses.
34. PW11 deposed as Asst.Manager in Vijaya Bank, RT Nagar branch. As per instructions of the higher officer he went to the CBI office thereafter Inspector and others, went to A-5 office and conducted mahazar. He accompanied CBI officials for conducting search at the A5 office. At that time A1 was present. The spot mahazar marked Ex.P126 and document seized by the officer identified by the witnesses which is marked as Ex.P127. After completion of the search in A5 office, they went to the CBI office. During the course of cross-examination he states as per Ex.P126 the 9 documents are seized by the CBI. He has seen the documents as on the date of preparing the seizure mahazar. But he has not seen same today, remaining suggestion has denied by the witnesses. On the evidence of this witness it is clear that, the CBI Inspector has conducted the mahazar in the presence of A1 and seized the some documents. This / 37 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 witness has put the signature on the mahazar as a witness. Moreover the accused counsel never put any suggestion to denied that, the CBI has not conducted mahazar. At this stage, I come to the conclusion that this witness support the prosecution/CBI has seized the documents belongs the A5 as per Ex.P126 and Ex.P127.
35. PW12 is also deposed the same facts which was stated by the PW-11. He is also one of the mahazar witness present at the time of conducting the mahazar by the PI, CBI. PW13 stated that he was Superintendent of customs in 2012, the CBI officers called and asked him to produce some documents like shipping bills of export of Muriate of Potash (MOP) by Live Ads. Accordingly, they have submitted the documents to the CBI which are already marked as Ex.P63 to Ex.P102. All the documents were called from ICD, Whitefield, Bangalore. While handing over document the CBI inspector had prepared receipt memo it is marked Ex.P132 and his signature is marked at Ex.P132(A). During the course of cross-examination , he deposed it is true that EX.P63 to 102 are not originated from their office, but it is originated from ICD, Whitefield. It is true that I have not examined the correctness of the document marked at Ex.P63 to 102. This evidence helpful to the case of the prosecution that the document originated from ICD belongs to A1.
/ 38 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
36. PW14 is the Agricultural Asst. deposed that in 2009 he received the letter from DDA,Bangalore to obtain samples from ICD, Whitefield, Bangalore and from there he took samples from containers belongs to A5. He has drawing 8 samples he has prepared mahazar which is already marked as Ex.P106 and his signature is Ex.P106(B). At that time 4 witnesses are present. They took samples as per FCO 1985. He has prepared form 'J' which is already marked as Ex.P103 and his signature is Ex.P103(B). He has also prepared 'K' form and 'J' form is for bring each container samples which are already marked Ex.P103 to 105. He is also identified documents marked Ex.P137 signature Ex.P137(A). The another letters and notifications also identified by this witness marked as Ex.P139 and 140. During the course of cross examination he deposed that as per the request from customs deportment along with a letter of the DDA, Bangalore he submits to the CBI, he is having acknowledgment . Witness gone through entire records and states that, the said requisition letter is not found now. He has not informed the exporter of the container at the time of drawing the samples belongs to A5. As per instructions of Superior officer he prepared mahazar, prepared 'J' and 'K' forms accordingly sent to lab for testing. The way of cross-examination is clearly indicate that, this witness is not given any admission in favour / 39 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 of accused. The evidence of witness also support the case of the prosecution.
37. PW15 deposed that she is supervise of fertilizer control laboratory. They have received the samples from fertilizer Inspector, agriculture officer. She has received the samples through PW14 along 'K' and 'P' forms. She has received 8 samples and opened the same and issued the acknowledgement to the Inspector. Thereafter, for analysis she decoded the same, after examination by the technician, they have submitted report. Accordingly she has mentioned in the report, thereafter PW14 personally came and received the report. As per report the material which was sent by the agricultural deportment is the Potassium Chloride. She is also identified the seizure memo which is marked as Ex.P141 signature Ex.P141(a). Their technicians will conduct analysis or tests on known fertilizers. They have not conducted the solubility test. This witness cross-examined the accused counsel. At that point of time she deposed that their lab has not conducted any test for industrial salt. Accused counsel shown the some documents issued by PIO and ADA which are marked Ex.D1 and
2. The samples are not in proper way she will reject the samples. She has produced the forms 'P' and 'K' which are also marked at Ex.P142 and Ex.P143. They are not supposed to keep the sample after the analysis. This witness evidence indicates that she is supervisor of the / 40 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 laboratory. She has received the samples and allotted to the other technicians for analysis the samples. After that she has received the report and submitted to the concerned deportment, as per the report the material which was sent by the Agricultural Department is the Potassium Chloride. The cross-examination conducted by the accused counsel is not helpful to the accused to disbelieve that the material which was drawn for testing is not the Potassium Chloride.
38. PW17 deposed about the search conducted by the CBI, he accompanying the CBI officers at HSR layout. Afterwards CBI officers conducted mahazar in his presence he put signature. At that point of time CBI seized 7 files in the premises of A5 company. During the course of cross examination he deposed that, I do not know the content of the seized document. As per the instructions of the witnesses he has written the mahazar but not as per instructions of the higher officers. The evidence of this witness indicates he has supported the case of prosecution . As such the evidence of this witness not helpful to the accused.
39. I would like to refer PW18 he deposed as per the request of the CBI. He has furnished the documents which are also marked as Ex.P138, receipt Ex.P137 and Ex.P139. In Jan 2009 MRP of Muriate of Potash (MOP) is Rs.4,455/- per tonne and subsidy given by the Govt. is Rs.27,686/- and the actual rate of Muriate of Potash (MOP) is / 41 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Rs.32,685/- Govt. will fix the MRP in every 6 months, but subsidy varies. This witness is also tested by the accused counsel at that point of time he deposed that, he has received the letter from the CBI and submitted the documents. He do not remember the date. He do not produced any documents to show that he has requested to draw samples nor he has produced any documents to show he has directed to his officer to drawn samples. The evidence of this witness indicates that, he speaks about MRP rate as per the Govt. circular etc. The accused counsel never put any suggestions that, the rate which was mentioned in the documents marked as Ex.P138 and Ex.P139 are not proper and correct. Moreover the evidence of this witness -indicates that he has deposed about the MRP rate at the relevant point of time, except this nothing has been stated by this witness.
40. At the same time PW19 deposed he was working in customs and central Excise, Bangalore. As per the direction of Addl.Commissioner Vijay Kumar he conduct investigation against A5. He has seized some documents which is marked as Ex.P148. He is also identified the bunch of documents of Shree Chemicals and Salt agency and M/s Ajay Chemicals and salts and electricals which are together marked as Ex.P149. He has seized fertilizer containers belonging to A5 and others. All the mahazars are prepared in the presence of the / 42 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 witnesses are already marked at Ex.P107 to Ex.P109. He has recorded statement of one Jagadeeshan under sec.108 of Customs Act which is marked as Ex.P150. This witness is testified by the accused counsel. As per Ex.P148 it is not possible to say A5 has exported the materials to foreign countries. As per documents marked as EX.P149, it is not possible to say whether materials said to have been purchased by A5 is of fertilizer grade salt. It is true that only after assuring the items are permissible for export to put it in the containers. He is not seen any test reports as mentioned in Ex.P107. He has personal knowledge about the samples drawn and sent to the test report. He do not know seized items are sold by customs Dept. for a price. It is sold Mangalore Chemicals and fertilizers. He do not know whether the material which was sold as Industrial grade salt or fertilizer grade salt. It is true that on the report of Agriculture Department he can say the exported item is the restricted item Muriate of Potash (MOP). It is true that the test report submitted by the exporters will be verified by customs Department. Before allowing export of the Cargo. The evidence of this witness indicates that he has conductd the mahazar and seized the documents belongs to A5 and Sri chemical and Ajay chemicals etc. He is also recorded the statement of Jagadeeshan. The cross examination conducted by the accused counsel is not discloses that, this witness is shaken during the course of cross examination. There are minor / 43 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 contradictions and omissions of the witnesses will not helpful to the accused.
41. Now I would like to refer the evidence and documents of PW20. He deposed as per letter of CBI. he handed over the some original documents of the A5 company. At that point of time CBI officer has prepared the mahazar, it is marked as Ex.P151 letter dated 21/5/2011 marked as Ex.P152, proceedings sheet is marked at Ex.P153, application for Ex.P154, Form No.1 is Ex.P155, Form No.2 Ex.P156, copy of passport of A1 is marked at Ex.P157 and VAT certificate of A1 is marked at Ex.P158.
42. PW21 is also stated same facts per the request of the CBI. He identifies the documents, at that point of time IO had prepared seizure memo and mahazar marked at Ex.P54. These documents are test certificates issued by the Bangalsore Test House. It is marked as Ex.P159. Likewise he has handedover Ex.P149.
43. PW22 Inspector deposed as per instructions of DC. He has submitted the documents same are marked as Ex.P160, letter marked as Ex.P161 and Ex.P162, 163. During the course of cross examination he deposed that documents are filed from customs disposal section, / 44 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 head quarters and ICD, Whitefield. He do not know the contents and purpose of the documents obtained by the CBI.
44. PW24 deposed he has received the letter from CBI and handedover the documents Shree Chemicals and Salt agency. This letter marked as EX.P227 and certificate issued under sec.65(B) of Evidence Act which is marked as Ex.P278. Shree Chemicals and Salt Agency had opened a current account in Canara Bank HAL but later on in 2011 account was closed. This witness testified by the accused counsel. He deposed that these documents are submitted at the request of the CBI. From the document it is not possible to say Shree Chemicals and Salt Agency is a fictitious firm. This witness only deposed about the account, it is not disputed the accused.
45. I would like to refer the PW30 deposed that they have submitted rent agreement as per request of CBI as marked Ex.P446,447 and MOA sketch of building and two renewal lease deed is marked as Ex.P448. This witness cross-examined the accused counsel and elicited that what purpose accused No.1 taken the building for the business of Gipson salt, he has used the same purpose. The evidence of this witness is clearly noticed that, accused No.1 used premises for / 45 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 doing business on the purpose used the same. It is not important to discuss in detail about the evidence of this witness.
46. I would like to refer the evidence of PW39 deposed that he is running lorry business in 2009. He has transported fertilizers from Raichur to Electronic City. One Vijayalaksmi transporters from Raichur gave order for the transport of fertilizers. Lorry documents marked as Ex.P522, 523. During the course of cross examination is deposed that, Ex.P522 does not disclose to which place the material was transported from their vehicle. He has never entered into any contract to transport the fertilizers from Electronic city to Whitefield. The evidence of this witness noticed he has transported the material as per the order issued by the transporter.
47. PW40 deposed that the Sr. officer asked her to submit the documents to CBI. At that time the CBI prepared seizure memo marked as Ex.P524, covering letter Ex.P525. He has identified the certified copy of MOA of A5 marked as Ex.P526 and AOA of A5 marked as Ex.P527. She identify certificate marked as Ex.P528, declaration in form No.1 marked as Ex.P529, form No.32 marked as EX.P530 and form No.18 marked as Ex.P531. During the course of cross examination deposed that she is unable to say about the genuineness / 46 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 of the documents submitted before CBI. This witness also not important to discuss in detail, as per the directions of the Sr.Officer. He has submitted the documents.
48. PW41 deposed as per letter sent by the CBI. He has verified the office records and noticed that they have not given any TIN No. mentioned in the letter issued by the CBI the dealer was not found in the given address. He has send the letter to CBI marked as Ex.P532. This witness testified by the accused counsel at that point of time the witness deposed that the TIN no. mentioned in Ex.P-532 is not registered in any company's name. It is true that if the number is assigned in any other States I am not aware of it, except this nothing has been elicited from this witness.
49. Now I would like to refer to the evidence of PW51 working as Director deposed that, as per intimation issued by the CBI. He has issued a letter and stated that in a relevant point of time Potassium Chloride mining are not existing in the State of Karnataka. Letter issued by witness marked as Ex.P549.
50. PW-53 Customs Superindent deposed about the procedure of shipping bill etc. He has identified the shipping bills which are already marked as Ex.P63 to Ex.P102. This witness is also testified by / 47 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 the accused counsel at that point of time he deposed that as per document Ex.P63 to 102 shown item sought to be exported, only after ensuring that all the documents are in order, they permit A5 to export. It is true that based on the self declaration marking on the packages free shipping bills are allowed to export. They have not ready to export the materials without insisting on the test report. Test report is not must for all exports. Initially they have allowed the materials without test report. Thereafter, in the month of March-April 09 samples were drawn and test report obtained shows the product as Potassium Chloride as technical grade. It is not restricted item. On the evidence of this witness noticed that Customs department has allowed the accused No.1 to export the material on the guise of Industrial salt. They have suspected the contents of the export material by A-1 they have taken samples and tested from lab and came to know the item which was exported by A-1 is Muriate of Potash (MOP).
51. PW-54 deposed that on the registration of the case he has obtained search warrant for search property of A5 as well as he has recorded the witness statement. This witness testified the accused counsel, however he has not given any admission.
52. PW-55 IO in this case deposed about the recording statement of the witnesses as well as collecting all the documents / 48 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 marked through the prosecution witnesses. During the course of investigation he has obtained sanction letter from office of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore and submitted along with the charge sheet. During the course of cross examination he has given some admission about fertilizer dealers, statement was not recorded, he has not collected the allotment letter of various registered dealers by the Government. He has not collected documents of Muriate of Potash (MOP) from authorized dealers. As per Ex.P149 series of bills discloses material which was supplied by dealers discloses as Industrial salt. He has not collected the list from Govt. as to who are registered dealer in Koppal, Raichur, Hassan, Sindhnoor etc. He has not collected the samples during the investigation, it is true that industrial salt is not restricted item as per shipping bills ,packing list mentioned as the Industrial salt . He further deposed that investigation documents means lab report and customs documents. Accused no.1 exported Muriate of Potash (MOP). The minor contradictions and omissions given by the witness during the course of cross examination is not possible to disbelieve entire evidence as well as document relied by the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well s document, one thing is clear that, the accused No.1 exported the restricted item by mentioning mis-declaration as Industrial salt . The said material is the Potassium Chloride is also called as Muriate of / 49 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Potash (MOP). The report taken by accused No.1 marked at Ex.P32 to 42 are clearly evidence on record the A1 has exported the materials which is the restricted items. The prosecution witnesses are categorically deposed, the material which was exported by the accused No.1 is the restricted item as per the Central Government notifications. As per the IEC code the A1 obtained license for export of Industrial salt. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. However he has not elicit anything to disbelieve that the test report which was conducted by the Bangalore test house as well as Agricultural Department are not the restricted item. The material witnesses categorically deposed that the samples which was drawn by the customs authority in presence of the agents of the accused No.1 is testified by the Agricultural department. The result is that the Muriate of Potash (MOP) was the item which was tested by the Agricultural Department. The accused No.1 has mentioned in the shipping bill, packing list etc as the item going to export as the Industrial salt. The intention of the accused No.1 clearly noticed that to cheat the Government, he has intentionally mentioned the code number as 700009949 of material was exported to the foreign country.
53. In every criminal case, the Court has to decide the matter on the facts of the allegations stated by the prosecution as well as / 50 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 evidence and documents . In this case, I have already discussed oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses as well as documents. The case of the prosecution is that, A1 and A2 are the Directors of A-5 company are exported the restricted item Muriate of Potash (MOP) to the foreign country without disclosing the true ICD code number in the shipping bill, packing list etc.. As per the allegations and evidence and documents, one thing is clear that A1 and A2 are obtained the IEC code for exporting the industrial salt. It is admitted by the prosecution also. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused NO.1 and 2 are entered into criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons as well as exported M O P in the garb of industrial salt from ICD., Bangalore to Malaysia from the period July 2008 to July 2009. A1 and A2 are also procured M O P from Koppal, Raichur and Sindhnoor and repacked at Bommasandra Industrial area and Electronic city and exported the material from ICD., Bangalore to Malaysia as industrial salt. During the relevant period. As per the documents, it is clearly noticed that A-1 has obtained Warehouse at Electronic city and Bommsandara Area. The documents as well as evidence of the owners of the flats clearly indicates that A1 and A2 are obtained the Warehouse in the above place. It is the further case of the prosecution that, A1 and A2 in the garb of industrial salt, they have exported restricted item Potassium Chloride called as M O P. In order to prove / 51 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 this allegation, the prosecution examined so many witnesses as well as got marked voluminous documents to prove the allegations against the accused.
54. In every criminal case, the documentary evidence prevail over the oral evidence of the witnesses. In the present case, the documents which are marked through the prosecution witnesses at Ex.P32 to Ex.P42 are the requisitions as well as report of the Bangalore Test House clearly indicates that the material which was sent by the A- 5 company for analysis , it is clearly noticed that as per the requisition, the Bangalore Test House has analyzed the samples and submitted the report. Wherein, it is clearly mentioned as "potassium chloride"
contained in the sample about 98%. The documents marked at Ex.P32 to 42 are the own documents of the A1 and A2 are clearly evident on record that, the material which was exported by the accused is the potassium chloride but the accused No.1 with an intention to cheat the Government , he has misdeclared the item as industrial salt in the invoice as well as packing list. As per the evidence of the customs officials, there is no mandatory rule insist to the exporter to submit the Test Report on the declaration mentioned by the exporter, they have exported the Cargo to the foreign country. As per the invoice as well as packing list marked through prosecution witnesses at Ex.P63 to 102 / 52 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 are clearly evident on record on the self declaration made by the exporter, it is mentioned as industrial salt. As per the invoice and packing list and other self declaration submitted by the exporter, the Chakiyath Agencies has submitted all the documents to the Customs department, after verifying the documents, Cargo is permitted to export to the foreign country. It is further noticed that customs department has suspected the material which was exported by the accused is Industrial salt or other product. On the suspicion grounds the customs department has drawn the samples belongs to the A-5 company in the presence of CHA agency. It is drawn by the Agrl.Officer as per the requisition submitted by the customs department. The said samples has sent to the agricultural department for testing. The report of the agricultural department is clearly evident on record that the material which was exported by the accused is potassium chloride called as M O P is restricted item as per the notification dated 28-1- 2004 issued by the Central Govt.
55. The Ld.Counsel for the accused draw attention of the Court that, the samples which was drawn by the customs department is not followed the procedure. The customs department has to issue notice to the exporter and draw the samples in his presence only. It is nodoubt as per the evidence of the prosecution the samples belongs to A-5 was / 53 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 drawn in presence of CHA Agencies. As per the rules, the Customs authority is going to draw any samples, the exporter or agent must be present. In this case, the CHA agent was present at the time of drawing the samples belongs to A-5. It is deposed by the prosecution witnesses during the course of evidence as well as the documents which are marked through the witnesses clearly evident that the material belongs to A-5 was drawn and sent to the testing. The Test report is clearly indicates that the material which was exported by the accused is a restricted item. As per the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses as well as documents , one thing is clear that, accused -1 and 2 are procured restricted item from the various places and exported as an industrial salt. Though there are minor contradictions and omissions in the prosecution witnesses evidence but these are not material to discard the entire evidence available on record. The own requisition as well as test report obtained by the accused No.1, it is clearly noticed that potassium chloride contents is more than 99%. The presumption is automatically arises in the minds of the court that self requisitions submitted by the A-5 company to the Bangalore Test House for testing the samples. The test report already marked through prosecution witnesses is disclose about the high contents of potassium chloride as stated in the report. Inspite of it, A1 and A2 are not disclosed the same in the shipping bill as well as / 54 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 packing list . It is the intention of the accused to obtain wrongful gain for misdeclaration in the invoice and packing list. A-1 who is the director as well as actively participated in the business transaction has given the self declaration along with invoice, packing list. It is clearly noticed that he has mentioned exported item as industrial salt. but as per the test report issued by the Agricultural department as well as Bangalore Test House , it is clearly noticed the material which was exported by the accused is not industrial salt. It is the potassium chloride called as MOP . As per the notification of the Central Government it is the restricted item .
56. The prosecution has made allegations that as per the shipping bill dated 16-7-2009 the A-5 company has exported the Cargo through ICD Malaysia about 1100 bags 50 kgs each in 22 containers along with the invoice, packing list, self declaration and other farmers, the customs department has suspected about the material which was going to export by the accused and draw the samples for testing. As I have already discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as documents one thing is clear that the material which was exported by the accused is a restricted item as per the Circular Chapter XXXI of the Fertilizer Act. , If the exporter is going to export any restricted item to the foreign country, he has to obtain the export code / 55 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 number through Central Govt.. It is an undisputed fact that the code number mentioned in the chap.XXXI the industrial salt as well as M O P is not one and the same. The Central Govt. has codified numbers to the restricted item as well as non-restricted items. As per the code number issued by the Central Govt.to A-5 company is 700009949 but as per the code number given to M O P is 31042000. As such, in my opinion, the code number mentioned in invoice and packing list is clearly evident that A-1 has mentioned code number 700009949. It seems that A-1 and 2 are with an intention to cheat the Central Govt. they have given mis-declaration in the invoice and packing list on that ground the customs department has permitted to export the Cargo.
57. At the same time, I would like to mention the shipping bill number as mentioned in the chargesheet as well as invoice and documents are noticed that these invoice as well as material which was drawn by the customs department are belongs to A-5 company. It is not disputed by the accused during the course of trial. A-1 has tried to export the Cargo vide shipping bill Nos. 2240092, 2240093, 2240095 dated 16-7-2009. Once the prosecution is able to prove the shipping bill as well as samples drawn to the container of A-5 are the restricted item, it is the duty of the accused to disprove the allegations as well as test report is not in accordance with law. As per the test report as well / 56 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 as oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and other documents, it is clearly evident on record the accused No.1 and 2 are not obtained the IEC code from the competent authority to export the restricted item. As such, in my opinion, the test report as well as oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other documents are clearly noticed that A1 and A2 in order to gain themselves they have made mis-declaration in the invoice and packing list.
58. The Ld.Counsel for the accused draw attention of the Court that I.O. who has conducted the investigation as well as collected documents has given so many admission during the course of evidence are material to disbelieve the case of the prosecution . I do concede the argument canvassed by the accused counsel. However, there is defect in the investigation by the I.O. itself is not a ground to discard the material as well as oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses but it is a settled principle of law that unless the defect in investigation prejudiced the accused, it cannot be made a ground for acquittal. Though I.O. has not recorded the statement of registered Fertilizer Dealers as well as he has not obtained the letters from the Govt. how much quantity of M O P is supplied to the registered dealers. This itself does not mean that A1 and A2 are not procured the restricted item from various places in Karnataka. As per the evidence of the / 57 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 prosecution witnesses, it is noticed that potassium chloride is called as Muriate of Potash (MOP) is not produced in Karnataka. It means the material which was exported by the accused was produced in some other Country and it is purchased by the Central Govt. and distributed to the registered dealers for supply to the farmers to grow agricultural products. It is no doubt, the I.O. has not collected relevant documents of the registered dealers that itself does not mean that there is lacuna in the case of the prosecution. Accused never tried to elicit anything that he has not purchased materials through various places as stated by the prosecution. More over, as per the own records of the accused, the material which was exported by the accused is potassium chloride. Such being the case, in my opinion, the prosecution is able to prove the allegations that material which was exported by the accused -1 and 2 are restricted item. On the contrary the accused is not able to furnish any document or evidence to show that the material which was exported by them is the industrial salt.
59. The prosecution further alleged that accused are opened Bank account No.0415201082 at Canara Bank in the name of non-existing firm by name M/s.Sree chemicals and Salt Agency at No.199, Abdul Rehmana street, Mumbai-400 003 having TIN No. 27180753139 and they have given forged documents to Canara Bank to open account in / 58 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 the name of non existing firm. In order to prove the said allegation, the prosecution has examined PW-24 and PW41 in this case.
60. PW-24 deposed that he worked as Manager of Canara Bank, HAL II Stage, Bangalore. In 2012 he received a letter from CBI to hand over some documents of Shree Chemicals and Salt Agency. Accordingly he has submitted the same. He identifies CC copy of statement of account of Shree Chemicals and Salt Agency from which is marked as Ex.P277. It discloses transaction of Shree Chemicals and Salt Agency. He identifies certificate issued by him U/s. 65(b) of Evidence Act which is marked as Ex.P278 . A-1 had opened a current a/c in Canara Bank HAL but later on in 2011 a/c was closed. During the course of cross examination, he deposed that, "... From the document it is not possible to say Shree Chemicals and Salt Agency is a fictitious firm. As per Ex.P277 the transactions which are made by party are legal transactions. It is true that A1 has not given forged documents to open the account in our bank....".
61. I do concede the evidence of PW-24 and documents marked at Ex.P277 and Ex.P-278, the accused are opened bank account . The allegation of the prosecution that Sree chemical agency is not in existence as per the address mentioned by the accused. On / 59 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 that reason, the account which was opened at Canara bank is fictitious account in order to transact about the Muriate of Potash (MOP) exported by the accused .
62. At the same time, the prosecution has examined PW-41. He deposed that he is working as DC of Sales tax in Mumbai . As per the request of the CBI he has conducted enquiry as address mentioned in the letter. They have not provided TIN number. He has verified the address and TIN No. stated in the letter of CBI. His enquiry revealed that M/s. Shri Chemicals and Salt Agency was not found in the given address. The TIN No. mentioned in the letter by CBI is not registered in their office. Accordingly he has sent the letter to the CBI stating the TIN No. is not given. He identifies that letter which is marked as Ex.P532 . The Ld. counsel for accused is not able to elicit anything to show that the address mentioned in the letter issued by the CBI the dealer was proper and correct. The ld.counsel for accused put suggestion that , If the number is assigned in any other States witness stated "I am not aware of it". This suggestion itself indicates that sree chemicals and salt agency was fictitious firm . It is not in existence as per the evidence of PW 41 and documents.
/ 60 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
63.On the contrary the accused is not able to show any documents that said agency as registered in Karnataka or in any other states. As per the documents Shree chemicals agency was having its office at Mumbai. However, oral testimony of the PW-41 and documents reveals that there is no such company in existence as well as TIN number is also not given by the competent authority. On the evidence of this witnesses as well as documents , I come to the conclusion that accused persons have opened bank account in the name of non-existing firm. It is proved by the prosecution by oral and documentary evidence. As I have already discussed in detail about the evidence and documents relied by the prosecution and come to the conclusion that accused persons in order to make wrongful gain they have exported restricted item as well as opened bank account in the name of fictitious firm. The entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as documents reveals that accused persons in order to gain for themselves as well as caused loss to the Central Govt. they had an intention to cheat and created fictitious firm and exported the restricted item to the foreign country. At the same time, I would like to refer the evidence of DW-1. Accused No.1/DW-1 deposed that he was exported industrial salt technical grade drilling chemicals. In all the consignments he has declared as Industrial salt. He was not aware about the above 60% of K2O is the Lone Criteria to declare chemical / 61 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 as fertilizer grade. During the course of cross examination by the prosecution he has admitted test report at Ex.P27 as well as signature on all the requisition letters. He has also admitted the documents marked at Ex.P30 to 42 are the test report received from Bangalore Test House. He has gone through all the reports. The admission given by the accused No.1 during the course of evidence itself indicates that, the material which as exported by the accused as potassium chloride but not industrial salt. At the same time, the ld.Counsel for the accused draw the attention of the court that, the Agrl.Department is not having any equipments to conduct test of industrial salt. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses. I do concede arguments submitted by the accused counsel. However, the accused is having liberty to sent the samples to any other testing Department to ascertain real composition of samples. It is not done so. At the same time, the accused has not produced any evidence or documents to show that the purchase of the said goods and a requisite license to export the same. He has also failed to explain the source of item or produce any evidence for licit supply of the item of export which was mis-declared to the department in the export documents under Sec.50 of the Customs Act, 1962. The test reports furnished by the D.D.A.(Fertilizer Control Laboratory ) has proved beyond doubt that the goods attempted to be exported as Muriate of Potash and not industrial salt as stated by the exporter in / 62 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 the shipping bill in question filed by the exporter in connection with the said export. As per Sec. 2(33) of the Customs Act defines , prohibited goods as any goods the import or export of which was subject to any prohibition under this act or any other law for the time being in force but does not include any such goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which the goods are permitted to be imported or exported have complied with. As per Chap.xxxi the Sl.No.132 under RITC 3104.20.00 describes straight potassic fertilizer- Potassium chloride (MOP)(all grades) are allowed free. But the following restrictions. Export permitted freely by direct importers of Muriate of Potash (MOP) out of quantity of import made during last six months subject to the following conditions:- (i) They will not claim any concession for the quantity intended to be exported; or (ii) They will return the concession if already claimed from the Government and (1) furnish certificate from the statutory auditors to the Dept .of Fertilizers and Customs that the quantity intended to be exported had been imported in the last six months and no concession/subsidy had been claimed; and(2) export realization in free foreign exchange only. Sl.No.133 of Restricted item if the above condition was not fulfilled."
64. More over, accused admitted during the course of cross examination by the prosecution that he has not obtained any import or export license for exporting restricted items. He further admitted as per / 63 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 the information furnished by him, the Chakaith Agency has prepared the shipping bills for export the Cargo. The above admission itself indicates that, accused NO.1 and 2 are given mis-declaration in invoice and shipping bills and tried to gain for themselves and caused loss to the Central Govt. As such, in my opinion the prosecution is able to prove the point No.1 and 2 by oral and documentary evidence beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
65. POINT No.3: As far as this point is concerned, the prosecution has made allegations that A-2 being the Director of the A-5 company entered into criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons and introduced A-1 to open the current account of A-5 at South Indian Bank , Koramangala for the purpose of carrying out transaction pertaining to Muriate of Potash without refunding the subsidy granted by Govt.of India which is restricted item for export and therefore caused a wrongful loss to Govt.of India to the tune of Rs.26.8 Crores. In order to substantiate the said fact, the prosecution has examined PW1 to 55 as well as got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P559 documents. I would like to restrict the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as documents. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution to this point is concerned is PW-26. He deposed that / 64 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 he worked as Sr. Manager of South Indian Bank, Koramangala branch, Bangalore. A5 had opened current a/c in their branch. He know CW37. He was his successor. He identifies the covering letter, which he has handed over some documents to the CBI which is marked as Ex.P435. He identify account statement of A5 which is marked as Ex.P436. He identifies certificate issued by him U/s. 2(a) of Banker Act which is marked as Ex.P437 and his signature is Ex.P437(a). He identifies current a/c opening form along with necessary documents of A5 in their bank which is marked as Ex.P438. He has also submitted RTGS details pertaining to a/c of A5 which is marked as Ex.P439. Ex.P439 shows that A5 had sent amount through RTGS to various persons. He identifies statement of a/c of Suresh Ratinam which is marked as Ex.P440. He identify certificate issued by him U/s. 2(a) of Banker Act which is marked as Ex.P441. He identifies RTGS details pertaining to current a/c of A5 which is marked as Ex.P442. He identifies details of bank remittances submitted by A1 which is marked as Ex.P443. He identifies certificate of foreign inward remittance of A5 issued by their branch which is marked as Ex.P444. It is issued in favour of A5 after conversion of US $ into Indian currency. A1 had sent amount through RTGS to different parties. The Ld. counsel for accused during the course of cross-examination elicited that a/c opening form along with documents are genuine. It is true that as per statement of account the / 65 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 transaction of A1 are genuine transactions. This evidence indicates that A-2 introduced A-1 to open account in order to business transact of A-5 firm . The documents which are submitted by A-1 at the time of opening account are genuine documents. As per the evidence of the Bank Manager. A-2 being the wife of A-1 in general in order to help her husband she has identified as an account holder of the Bank. Mere introducing A-1 to open the account in South Indian Bank itself does not mean that A-2 has an intention to cause any loss to Govt. or anybody. The Bank Manager never depose that the documents submitted by A-1 during the course of opening the account are fictitious or non- existence, then it would have been taken different view . Once documents are genuine as well as A-1 has transacted in the account of A-5, it is not proper to say A-2 had an intention to cheat the Govt.and she has introduced A-1 to open the account . Mere introducing A-1 to open current account in the South Indian Bank and Koramangala itself is not an offence in the eye of law. As such, in my opinion allegation made by the prosecution against A-2 is concerned , there is no substantial material to show that A-2 with an intention to cheat the Govt. or some other party, she has introduced to open the current account. Once the bank manager himself depose that the transaction for the account of A-5 are genuine and proper then the question does not arise that accused No.2 with a bad intention she had / 66 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 introduced A-1 to open current account. As such, I come to the conclusion that prosecution is not able to prove this point with corroborative evidence and documents. Hence, I answer point No.3 in the negative.
66. POINT No.4:- As far as this point is concerned, the prosecution has made allegations against A-3 that, he had entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused and supplied fertilizer to A-1 through A-4 and received amount from A-5 company Account. He has also got money from A-1 by opening account in others name i.e. Veeranna, Ashwin Mahaveerchand Jangada, Maruti Devapa Nayak, Mallappa Annigeri were working under him. Accused also opened account in the name of his employers to get payment from A-5 for the supply of fertilizer. By this act, he has caused wrongful loss to the Central Govt.of India and wrongfully gained by the accused. In order to substantiate these allegations, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW55 and got marked Ex.P1 to 559 documents. However, I would like to restrict the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as documents on this point. The material witness deposed against this accused are PWs-23, 29, 32, 42, 48, 49, 54 and 55 as well as documents got marked through these witnesses at Ex.P164 to Ex.P276, Ex.P445, Ex.P198, Ex.P240 to Ex.P276., Ex.P539 to Ex.P548, Ex.P553 to / 67 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Ex.P.559. The material witness PW-23 being the Bank Manager of Corporation Bank, Koppal deposed that as per the request of the CBI, he has handed over some documents . At that time CBI Inspector has prepared receipt Memo which is marked at Ex.P164 and signature of this witness is marked at Ex.P164(a) , covering letter address to the Inspector of CBI for handing over documents marked at Ex.P165 , signature is at Ex.P165(a) . Account statement of Veeranna is marked at Ex.P166, it discloses A-5 had sent amount through RTGS to the account of Veeranna. Account of statement of Mahaveer Chand Jangada is marked at Ex.P167. It also disclose he had used debit card for purchase of goods . Account statement of Maruthi Devappa Naik is marked at Ex.P168.It disclose that he had received amount through RTGS from HDFC Bank. Account statement of Mallappa Annigeri is marked at Ex.P169 discloses Mallappa Annigeri had received the amount through RTGS from Karur Vysya Bank. Account statement of Gautham chand Manikchand jangada is marked at Ex.P170. It discloses Gauthan chand Manik chand Jangads had sent cheques for collection and it was realized to his account. Five certificates issued by him u/s.65(b) of Indian Evidence Act is marked at Ex.P171 to Ex.P175 and his signature is marked at Ex.P171(a) to Ex.P175(a). Again he went to the CBI office and handed over some documents. At that time, prepared receipt memo marked at Ex.P176 and his signature is at / 68 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Ex.P176(a) . He has identified suspicion transaction report marked at Ex.P178. Account opening form of Ashwin Jangada in their bank is marked at Ex.P179. 04 cheques of Corporation bank, koppal branch issued by Ashwin Jangada in favour of Dilipkumar marked at Ex.P180, Ex.P181, 185 and 187 through RTGS challans marked at Ex.P182, 186, 188 pertaining to above cheques. Another cheque issued by Ashwin Jangada in favour of Renuka traders marked at Ex.P183 and signature at Ex.P183(a) through RTGS marked at Ex.P184. Account opening form of A-3 marked at Ex.P191 cheque issued by A-3 in favour of Dilipkumar marked at Ex.P192 and Ex.P194 and signature at Ex.P192(a) through RTGS challan marked at Ex.P193, Ex.P195.. Another account opening form of Mallappa is marked at Ex.P198 cheque issued by Mallappa in favour of Erappa is marked at Ex.P199 through RTGS challan marked at Ex.P200. Another cheque issued by Mallappa in favour Dilikumar marked at Ex.P201, Ex.P203 and Ex.P205 through RTGS challan marked at Ex.P202, 204 and 206. Another account opening form of Maruthi Devappa Nayak is marked at Ex.P220 cheque issued by him in favour of Dilipkumar is marked at Ex.P221 and 223 through RTGS challans marked at Ex.P222 and Ex.P224. Another cheque issued by Maruthi Devappa nayak in favour of T.Kumaraiah is marked at Ex.P225 through RTGS challan marked at Ex.P226. Another cheque issued by him in favour of Abrar K.J. is marked at Ex.P227 / 69 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 through RTGS challan Ex.P228. He has issued 11 cheques in favour different persons which are marked at Ex.P229 to 239. Account statement of Veeranna is marked at Ex.P240 cheque issued in favour of Subhash marked at 246, 245, 249 through RTGS challan marked at Ex.P242, 246 and 250 . He had issued another cheque in favour of Narasimha rao marked at Ex.P243 and his signature is marked at Ex.P243(a) and RTGS marked at Ex.P244. Another cheque issued in favour of Anantha Shetty marked at Ex.P247, 255 and signature at Ex.P247(a) , RTGS challans marked at Ex.P248 and 256. Veeranna issued another cheque in favour of H.J.Dhanraj marked at Ex.P251 RTGS challan marked at Ex.P252. Another cheque issued by Veeranna in favour of Irrappa marked at Ex.P252 RTGS challan marked at Ex.P254. Veeranna had also issued 20 self cheques of different dates for different amount marked at Ex.P257 to Ex.P276.
67. This witness is testified by the accused counsel. At that time he deposed that all transactions which were stated above are completed before he took charge. His predecessor was Gauz pasha . It is true that Manager of bank has to sign heavy transaction made by customers . It is true that the manager of bank has to sign transaction of morethan Rs.10 lakhs. It is true that if any suspicious transaction happens it will be intimated to higher officer. It is true that he is not able to say it is a suspicious transaction as that time Gauz pasha was / 70 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 the manager. On the basis of the available material in this case he is deposing. In the absence of manager the incharge bank officials will put the signature on the cheque. The account holder of the cheque has to present before the bank. There is no guidelines to transact heavy amount. Till today A-3 their bank customer and make transaction and he know him as he is a regular customer and know his business. A-3 is a grain merchant in koppal. Most of the transaction is business transaction. In his tenure A-3 has sent money through RTGS to different customers It is true that all the records are submitted as CBI asked him. Therefore he is not able to say this is a suspicious transaction. Some of the account were closed before he took charge. This evidence indicates that the account holder who has transacted with the bank, he is possible to say these are fictitious account as well as account holders are tried to made any suspicious transaction.
68. Now I would like to refer to the evidence of PW-29. He deposed that he knows A-3 . He is his brother. A-3 is one of the partner of Gowtham Trading Company. In the year, 2009 his brother told that some people asked fertilizer therefore they discuss with their commission agents about the fertilizer. He has not enquired fertilizer with any anybody. After 2 months they got the information the fertilizer is available in Koppal Dist.. His brother informed to Sanjay Mootha.
/ 71 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Except this nothing has been stated by this witness. He was treated as hostile and cross examined by the prosecution. During the cross examination, he has denied all the suggestion put by the prosecution and statement of witness is marked as Ex.P-445. This witness was again cross examined by the accused counsel and he deposed that the amount which was deposited in his account used to be paid for agents. This account opened for fertilizer transaction. Himself and his brother have made any supply and transaction of fertilizer with A-1.
69.PW-32 is one of the account holder and he was working under A-3 as Clerk deposed that, A-3 was doing Maize business. He was not doing any fertilizer business. A-3 advised him to open account in Corporation Bank. Account opening form is marked at Ex.P198. He has put signature on blank cheque. He do not know reading and writing. He did not ask A-3 for what purpose he is going to sign on the cheque . A-3 was operating his transaction with the bank.
Again this witness was cross examined by the accused counsel. At that point he deposed that as and when amount was deposited to his account he used to issue cheque. He do not remember who issued the cheque. He has not utilized the amount deposited to his account. He has not given any amount to A-3. This evidence indicates that this account holder has opened the account and obtained the cheque, / 72 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 whenever amount deposited to his account, he used to issue the cheque. He never stated amount is utilized by A-3.
70. PW-42 deposed that he was working under A-3 as Clerk. He had opened an account in Corporation Bank, Koppal branch as per instruction of A-3 and the same is marked at Ex.P240. He has not handed over the cheque to A-3. He has received cheque book from the Bank . He used to issue the cheques as per the instructions of A-3. Cheques and RTGS applications are marked at Ex.P243 to 276. He has signed the cheque and handed over to the people of A-3. He has not withdrawn any amount mentioned in the cheque and he was not aware of the amount deposited to his account.
During the course of cross examination he deposed that,A3 has given instruction over phone to issue chques. He used to sign the cheque and give to people of A-3. The said persons are not working with A-3. The said persons who have received the cheques are not the relatives of A-3. The evidence of this witness noticed that as per the instruction of A-3 he has issued cheque . Except this, nothing has been elicited that A-3 or this witness has used the amount which was deposited by somebody.
/ 73 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
71. PW-43 deposed the same set of facts which was deposed by PW-42. This witness turned hostile and cross examined by the prosecution. During the course of cross examination, he has not given any admission.
72. PW-48 deposed that he is doing the business of Maize at Hassan. He know the writer of A-3 by name Santhosh and Adiyappa. He has not directly conducted the business with A-3. He was not doing business of fertilizers. A-3 never asked him to supply fertilizer MOP. Bank account opening form and NEFT request form are identified by the witness marked at Ex.P539 to 541. Statement of account of ING Vysya bank marked at Ex.P544. He has received amount through A-3 pertaining to maize business. This witness was treated as hostile and cross examined by the prosecution; he has not admitted any suggestion put by the prosecution.
73. PW49, Recovery Manager deposed that as per the intimation from CBI, Bangalore, he has submitted the details pertaining to documents of Dilipkumar through covering letter marked at Ex.P546. CBI officials have prepared receipt memo marked at Ex.P547 Current account opening form, RTGS application, statement of account, certificate u/s.65(b) of Evidence Act are marked at Ex.539 to 544 and Ex.P548. He identifies the signature of branch manager is marked at Ex.P548(a). Except this, nothing has been stated by this witness.
/ 74 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
74. PW-54 part Investigating Officer deposed about the registration of the case , obtained search warrant and conducted search at the premises of A-5 and he has collected documents and recorded statement of the witnesses thereafter he has handed over case file to CW-68.
75. PW-55 Investigating officer deposed about the recording statement of witnesses as well as collecting documents on various dates . After completion of the investigation, he has submitted chargesheet.
During the cross examination, he deposed that; It is true that he has not recorded statement of fertilizer dealers. It is true that there is invoice kept by the Govt.as well as registered dealer of the MOP . It discloses how much quantity of the MOP has been allotted by the Govt. to the registered fertilizer dealer.. He do not know registered fertilizer dealer has to submit details of the MOP supplied to the customers to be Govt. periodically. . He do not know registered dealer has to maintain the invoice how much quantity of the MOP has to supplied to the customers and same invoice has to submit to the Govt. periodically. He do not know who is the registered fertilizer dealer in Koppal, Raichur, Hassan and Sindanoor Dt.,who has supplied MOP to the customer as well as he has not recorded the statement of the registered dealer.
/ 75 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
76. On going through the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses as well as documents, I would like to mention that the Bank Manager /Pw-23 deposed about the account opened by the employees of A-3 as well as cheuqes , RTGS applications etc.. which are marked at Ex.P164 to 276. During the course of cross examination by the accused counsel, the admission given by the Bank Manager noticed that at the relevant point of time he was not the Manager. He had not personal knowledge about the transaction made by the employee of A-3. On the basis of the documents he has deposed before this Court. Mere marking of the documents itself is not sufficient to prove the contents of the documents. He deposed on the basis of earlier records. Mere account holders opening forms, cheques, RTGS furnished through this witness and got marked by the prosecution itself does not mean that, accused No.3 has influenced on the employee and opened the account and he has tried to obtain gain through these accounts holders. As per the evidence of this witness A-3 is grain merchant in Koppal . Most of his transaction is business transaction. Such being the case, in my opinion transaction which was done by A-3 is not pertaining to MOP. More over the prosecution is not able to furnish any other documentary evidence to show that A-5 company had directly deposited amount to the account of A-3. The account holders stated as per the instruction of A-3 they have opened account and obtained cheque book and issued / 76 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 whenever agents come to them and asked the amount. Such being the case, it is not proper to hold that, A-3 has misutilized the amount of the account holder who are opened the account as per the instruction of A-3. All the three employees of A-3 examined in this case. They have turned hostile. During the cross examination by the prosecution, they have not given any admission. The other witness ie.. police officials deposed about the investigation as well as collecting documents, recording of the statement of witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses as well as documents are not reveals that A-3 in order to cheat the Govt. or A-5 company he has obtained any amount and tried to cause loss to the Govt. he has opened account through various persons. First of all the prosecution is not able to furnish any documentary evidence to show that A-3 is the registered fertilizer dealer at Koppal as well as he has obtained restricted MOP through Central Govt. the I.O. has conducted investigation never deposed that he has visited Koppal as well as searched the premises as well as shop of A-3 and collected documents. There is no Iota of evidence available on record to show that, A-3 doing the fertilizer business as well as he has supplied MOP to A-5 company. Atleast I.O. has to collect any transport receipt or any other documents to show A-3 is having such material to supply to A-5 company. First of all as per the evidence of other witnesses in this case noticed restricted item potassium chloride / 77 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 called as Muriate of Potash (MOP) is not produced in Karnataka State. It is further noticed potassium chloride called as Muriate of Potash (MOP) has to be supplied by the Govt.of India to the registered dealers . It has to supply to the Farmers to grow the food products.
77. The Investigating officer himself deposed that Muriate of Potash (MOP) is a restricted item . It is allotted by the Govt. of India to various registered dealers with a particular invoice which also contains quantity and rates. I.O. further admitted that he has not examined any fertilizer dealer from Koppal, Raichur, Hassan and Sidhnoor. This itself indicates that there is no documentary evidence by the side of the prosecution to show that A-3 is the person was doing fertilizer business as well as he has supplied restricted item to A-5 company. The three witness is cross examined by the prosecution in this case. Though they deposed that as per the instruction of A-3 they have opened current account in the Corporation Bank, Koppal branch but hey have not deposed that A-3 has supplied any restricted item to A-5 as well as the said amount was deposited by A-5 to their account and in turn, they have paid the amount to A-3 . So the question of A-3 has received the amount from A-1 for the supply of Muriate of Potash (MOP) does arise at all.
/ 78 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 As I have already discussed and come to the conclusion that merely made allegation that this accused No.3 has supplied restricted item through A-4 as well as other agencies itself does not mean that he has supplied the materials. There must be some documentary evidence to show that this accused person is the registered fertilizer dealer as well as in order to cheat farmers and Govt.of India, he has illegally supplied the restricted item to A-5 company. It is further noticed that, I.O. is not able to collect any documentary evidence to show that, this A-3 has purchased the restricted item through registered dealers, thereafter he has supplied to the A-5 company. More over the I.O. is not able to record statement of the owners of the transport agency. The documents which are marked at Ex.P164 to Ex.P276 are the account opening forms, account extract of the witness. These documents does not reflect that A-3 has operated all these accounts and issued any cheque as well as he has tried to gain the amount deposited in all these accounts. The I.O is not able to trace out the registered fertilizer dealer in the various places as stated in the chargesheet as well as he is not able to collect any material documents to show that this accused has purchased restricted item and supplied to the A-5 company. As such I come to the conclusion that on the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as documents , the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of this accused No.3 beyond / 79 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 all reasonable doubts. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused No.3. Accordingly I answer point No.4 in the negative.
78. POINT No.5:- As far as this point is concerned, the prosecution has made allegation against A-4 that, he has introduced one Vikram Sakalecha Fertilizer dealer who is the proprietor of M/s. Abhay Agro Services in Sindhnoor and A-3 Gouthan Jangada of Koppal to A-1 for supply of muriate of potash. He has also asked Srinivas, Veerakumar Haranna @ Iranna and Sri Magdoom sab to open the accounts. Accordingly the accounts were opened in name of above persons. Accused has used these accounts to get money for supply of Muriate of potash to A-1, Further, A-4 also arranged warehouse at plot No.243, Bommasandra Indl.Area to A-1 from his distant relative one MOtilal from Bangalore to store and repacking of muriate of potash and the same material is exported by A-5 through ICD., Whitefield, Bangalore in the name of industrial salt and therefore he caused a wrongful loss to Govt.of India and corresponding wrongful gain to himself. In order to prove these allegations, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-55 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P559. I would like to restrict about the evidence as well as documents marked by the prosecution in connection with this accused. The material witness deposed before this court against this Accused are PW-16, 25, 27, 28, / 80 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 50, 54, 55 and documents marked at Ex.P145 to 147, Ex.P280 to 439, Ex.P449 to 451, Ex.P453, Ex.P454, Ex.P382 to 389, Ex.P449 , Ex.P450, Ex.P281 to Ex.P283, Ex.P284 to 420, Ex.P537 to Ex.P538 and Ex.P283 to 302.
79. Now I would like to refer to the evidence of PW-16. He was working as Superintendent Central Excise. As per the instruction of Deputy Commissioner, he conducted search in the office and residential premises of A-4 at Raichur. He has prepared panchanama on 13-8- 2009. He has not recovered any documents. He has identified panchanama marked at Ex.P145, 146, he recorded Statement of accused No.4 u/s.108 of Customs Act and marked at Ex.P147. This witness is cross examined by the accused counsel. At that time, he deposed that " It is true that in the last page of statement of A-4, he has not mentioned the statement of accused is read over and explained to him." At the time of recording statement, he has formed the questions and put to accused. Then accused has answered the same. It is recorded in the statement. Except this nothing has been stated by this witness.
80. PW-25 Branch Manager of Karur Vysya Bank , Raichur deposed that, as per the letter of CBI, he has handed over documents / 81 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 pertaining to A-4 , Veer kumar, Magdoom saab, Iranna, Srinivas. AT that time, CBI officials have prepared receipt memo which is marked at Ex.P280. Account opening form is marked at Ex.P281 of Veerkumar. Account statement, cheque, RTGS issued in favour of different persons by Veer kumar marked at Ex.P282 to 302 and 31 self cheques issued by veerkumar marked at Ex.P303 to 333 and two cash remittance challan marked at Ex.P334 , 335. He has identified account opening form of Magdoom saab marked at Ex.P336, account extract marked at Ex.P337, He identified cheque, RTGS issued by him in favour of other persons marked at Ex.P338 to 349. 05 self cheques of Magdoom sab marked at Ex.P350 to 354 and SB account opening form at Ex.P335. He identified account opening form of Iranna marked at Ex.P356 and statement of account of him is at Ex.P357. He identified cheque, RTGS,issued by Iranna in favour of other persons marked at Ex.P358 to
367. 14 self cheques marked at Ex.P368 to 381. He identified the account opening form, statement of account of srinivas marked at Ex.P382 and 383. He also identified cheque, RTGS issued by srinivas in favour of other persons marked at Ex.P384 to 392. 28 self cheques of Iranna marked at Ex.P393 to 420 . He identified S.B.Account statement of account of A-4 marked at Ex.P423. Certified copy of account Statement of account of A-4 marked at Ex.P424. Statement of current account of Srinivas, Veera kumar , Magdoom sab , Iranna marked at / 82 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Ex.P425 to 428. He has also issued six certificates as per Bankers Evidence Act which are marked at Ex.P429 to 434.
This witness is cross examined by the accused counsel and elicited that transaction which are taken place before he took charge in the bank. In 2009 one Sathish kumar is the bank Manager. He know the transactions carried out by account holders. It is true that if any self cheque presented by customers amount is heavy ie. More than lakh they make enquiry with the account holder with regard to purpose of withdrawal. These account statements are sculled out from original account statement." The evidence of witness noticed that A-4 and other persons are opened current account in Karur vysya bank in Raichur. They have made transaction through these account. However, the bank manager never deposed that A-4 as well as account holders are made any suspicious transaction in the accounts.
81. PW-27 deposes that he started the Electrical Business from December 2007 in the name of Ajay Electricals, Balepet, Bangalore. He obtained VAT registration no. and Tin No. from commercial Dept. He is the only proprietor of Ajay Electricals. His brother Dilip was assisting him in the business. He had SB account in SBM, along with his brother Dilip. In 2008 Nov. A-4 came to their shop and told to start the industrial salt business and he obtained license from the competent authority. He submitted application for license in / 83 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 the commercial Department and obtained the license. Thereafter he did not do Industrial salt business. In March 2009 he stopped the electrical business. Rs.20 lakhs deposit to his account by somebody. His brother Dilip kumar withdrawn the Rs.Twenty Lakhs. He identified Ex-149 i.e, is Cash bills, stands in the name of Ajay Chemicals salts and Electricals. He say these bill are not issued by them. They have not supplied any materials to A-5. This witness is testified by the accused counsel and tried to elicit A-4 has not instructed to start the industrial salt business . It is denied by the witness.
The evidence of this witness noticed that he is not able to say anything about the allegation made by the prosecution against the A-4. As such, in my opinion it is not proper to discuss in detail about the evidence of this witness.
82. PW-28 deposed that from 2007 to 2009 he worked in the Ajay Electricals as assistant. PW27 is the proprietor of the Ajay Electricals. One Mr. Santhosh Varma is working in the Bommasandra Industrial area. He know the A-4. He identified the Exp149 and the bills which are in his handwritings marked as Exp-149(sl. No.1 to 25) and his signature is marked as Ex.p149 (a to y). The particulars mentioned in the above bills are Industrial salt Technical Grade for export. Against form H delivery at Bangalore ICD. He was also mentioned Lorry numbers in / 84 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 the bill. These bills are issued in the name of A-5. Santhosh varma instructed him to write above bills accordingly he written bills. The Ajay Electricals never delt with industrial salt business. Their Ajay Electricals never supply Industrial salt to A-5. He identified A-1 and A-4 who are present before this court. His father introduced A-1 . He do not know whether the transaction taken place or not.
The evidence of this witness noticed that neither helped to the prosecution nor accused . As per the instruction of one Santhosh Verma , he has written the bills in the name of A-5 . However Ajay Electricals never dealt with the salt business. This itself is sufficient to hold that, this witness never supported to the prosecution to prove the case against A-4.
83. PW-31 deposed that M/s.Abhaya Ago Agencies was established by his grand father about 30 years back. M/s.Abhaya food products was started by him in 2008. He know A1 and A4. A1 and A4 have never came to Sindhnoor and asked him about supply of materials. A-4 has never asked him to supply any fertilizers. He has not supplied the fertilizes to A-1 and A4 from his company. He identify account opening form stands in his name marked at Ex.P449 and he opened SB account in Axis bank, Sindhnoor Branch. He identified statement of account marked at Ex.P450. This witness is turned hostile. The prosecution has cross examined this witness. At that time, he has / 85 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 not given any admission. As such, in my opinion, the evidence of this witness is also not material to discuss in detail.
84. Now I would like to refer the evidence of PW 33 . He deposed that his brother Ajay Kumar was doing the business in the name & style as Ajay Electricals in No. 8, MSR Lane, Balepet. He used to go to his shop and assist him in his work. He know A4 and he identify him. A4 also belongs to his native place. Therefore, he know him. During December 2007, A4 came to Bangalore and asked him to conduct industrial salt business at Bangalore. Thereafter they have added Ajay Electricals and chemical salt to their proprietor Firm. He agreed to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month to him. A4 was having godown at Bommasandra and he was supervising the godown. He do not know from which place materials were coming. They were used to send the materials to A5. A4 used to come to godown at Bommasandra Industrial estate. In the year February 2009 sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs was deposited in his account by A5. He has withdrawn the same and handed over to A4. He identified Ex.P149 and the cash bills prepared by him which is marked as Ex.P149(26 to 36). His signature is marked as Ex.P149( 26(a) to 36(a)). Their Ajay Electricals and Chemical salt have never supplied industrial salt to any company. Ajay Electricals and Chemical salt have never dealt with the business of industrial salt. A4 / 86 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 asked him to prepare cash bills in the name of Ajay Electricals and Chemical salt and accordingly he prepared the bills.
This witness is testified by the accused counsel. At that time, he deposed that, bills books do not disclose the name of A-4. Their business joint account is in SBM., Banashankari. Cheque leaves are written by himself and his brother. Nearly 5-6 cheques are submitted and withdrawn the amount. A-4 is not doing any business as well as he has not obtained any TIN No. from commercial tax department. This evidence disclose that though he has deposed as per the instruction of A-4, he prepared the cash bill. However A-4 is not having any license or authority to run the said business. Then question does not arise to prepare bill as per the instruction of A-4. Though this witness deposed he was getting Rs.30,000/- P.M. from A-4. However he is not able to furnish any document to show as he received Rs.30,000/- P.M. Mere on the oral say of the witness, it is not possible to accept this A-4 doing M O P business.
85. PW-34 deposed he has started business in the name & style as Navbhan Minerals processing pvt. Ltd. in No. 243, Bommasandra industrial estate. They have allowed A4 to use it as a transit point. The materials were coming and going though trucks. Approx. for a month A4 used to visit the said place. The CBI has asked him to submit the documents pertaining to their property. Accordingly he has submitted / 87 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 the documents through covering letter dt. 07.05.2012 which is marked as Ex.P452. His signature is Ex.P452(a). He identified notary attested copy of sale deed executed in their favour which is marked as Ex.P453. He identified receipt memo dt. 07.05.2012 which is marked as Ex.P454.
This witness was testified by the accused counsel. During the cross examination, he deposed that, he do not know whether the materials was unloaded or repacked. He do not know whether he carried any business. They have allowed A-4 as a good gesture for using the premises. It is true that he has not seen A-4 in the premises. He did not go and inspect the premises.
The evidence of this witness noticed that he is the owner of the premises. Except saying that material which are coming and going through trucks he has never deposed that A-4 is doing any business to export materials as restricted item. More over he has never deposed A-4 has supplied M O P to A-5 company. As such, this evidence is not material to discuss in detail.
86. PW-38 deposed that he know A4 and he was working under him 5 years ago as a clerk. A4 asked him to open the account in Karur Vysya Bank, Raichur. Accordingly, he has opened the current a/c. He identified the said current a/c opening form which is marked as Ex.P382. He do not know who has introduced him in the bank.
Thereafter he has handed over some signed blank cheques to the
/ 88 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
servant of A4. He has not enquired for what purpose the servant of A4 has obtained the cheques from him. One Ajay Kumar Bora used to withdraw the amount from his account. He used to operate the a/c. He identified Ex.P384 self cheque of Karur Vysya Bank, Raichur. His signature is Ex.P384(b). The above cheque is issued to make the RTGS. He identified Ex.P386 i.e RTGS application and his signature in it is Ex.P386(a). He identified Ex.P387 another self cheque for Rs. 5,00,028/- and his signature on the reverse side of the cheque is Ex.P387(b). This cheque is issued to make RTGS. He identified Ex.P- 389 another self cheque for Rs. 2,20,000/-. His signature on reverse side is Ex.P389(b). The above transactions were dealt by Ajay Kumar Bora. Ajay Kumar Bora is from the side of A1. He has not withdrawn any amount for himself.
This witness is testified by the accused counsel. He deposed that, he know Ajay kumar Bora and he is from Raichur. Ajay kumar Bora is from the side of A-1. He is working in Bangalore. The witness evidence noticed that though he was an account holder in Karur Vysya Bank, Raichur ,obtained cheque and issued in favour of other persons. It seems that the said account was operated by him, A-4 has not withdrawn any amount from this account. Ajaykumar Bora opened account. The evidence of this witness is also not material to discuss in detail.
/ 89 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
87. PW-39 deposed that he was running lorry business in 2009. He has transported the fertilizer from Raichur to Electronic City. One Vijayalakshmi transporters from Raichur gave order for transport of fertilizers. Except this, nothing has been stated by this witness to show that the A-4 has made any transportation of fertilizer from Raichur to Electronic city. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss in detail.
88. PW-46 deposed the same set of facts as stated byPW-25. Hence, it is not required to discuss in detail.
89. PW-50 deposed that he was worked under A-4 for 1-2 years. A-4 asked him to open current account in Karur Vysya Bank, Raichur. He has opened the current account. It is marked at Ex.P283 and his signature is marked at Ex.P293(b). At the time of opening account Srinivas was present. He received cheque book, and He handed over cheque book to A-4. He has not transacted with the said account. He do not know who transacted in his account. He identified the self cheque already marked as exhibits and RTGS applications are also already marked as Exhibits in this case. He has not done business in the said transaction. He do not know for whom amounts covered in the cheques and RTGS were transferred. He used to withdraw the amount from bank and give it to the persons sent by A-4. He has not used any amount withdrawn. During the course of cross examination, he deposed that, at the time of opening of account one Uttam Chand Jain / 90 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 introduced him. The remaining suggestion put by the accused counsel denied by the witness. The evidence of this witness noticed as per the instructions of A-4, he has opened an account and received cheque book and signed on all the cheques and handed over to A-4. However, he has not asked any questions to the A-4 , how it has to be utilized by A-4, he has not asked why he is going to put sign on the blank cheque. More over, he has handed over all the signed cheques to the persons of A-4. He is not ready to depose about the self cheque issued by him.
The evidence of this witness indicates that, he was having knowledge that alleged cheques were issued in favour of some other persons. At the same time, it is noticed that, cheque belongs to this witness. Hence, he put the signature on the cheque. He has issued the same to different persons. As such, in my opinion, it is not possible to hold that A-4 is the author of the cheque and he has used the same for his personal benefit.
90. Now I refer the evidence of PW-54. He deposed that after registration of the case by D.I.G. he took up further investigation. As per the instruction of DIG, he has obtained search warrant and conducted search in the premises of A-5 in the presence of witnesses. He has also collected documents and examined and recorded the statement of witnesses thereafter, he has handed over the investigation to CW-68.
/ 91 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
91. PW-55 Investigating officer deposed about the recording statement of witnesses as well as collecting documents on various dates . After completion of the investigation, he has submitted chargesheet.
During the cross examination, he deposed that; It is true that he has not recorded statement of fertilizer dealers. It is true that there is invoice kept by the Govt. as well as registered dealer of the MOP . It discloses how much quantity of the MOP has been allotted by the Govt. to the registered fertilizer dealer. He do not know registered fertilizer dealer has to submit details of the MOP supplied to the customers to be Govt. periodically. . He do not know registered dealer has to maintain the invoice how much quantity of the MOP has to supplied to the customers and same invoice has to submit to the Govt. periodically. He do not know who is the registered fertilizer dealer in Koppal, Raichur, Hassan and Sindanoor Dt.,who has supplied MOP to the customer as well as he has not recorded the statement of the registered dealer.
92. On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as documents marked in this case. The person who has conducted the panchanama in the office premises and house of A-4 is not able to recover any documents. It is admitted during the course of evidence. The statement of accused recorded by the officer u/s.108 / 92 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 of Customs Act which is marked at Ex.P147 is also not possible to believe that this A-4 is having any documents to show that he has supplied Muriate of Potash (MOP) from Raichur to Bangalore. The Bank Manager deposed about opening of the account by the employees of this accused and cheques, RTGS challans submitted by the account holder and withdrawn the amount etc.. The Bank Manager deposed that A-4 as well as account holders are not made suspicious transaction in the account. As such in my opinion, merely on the say of this accused, some of the employees are opened an accounts in the bank and obtained cheque issued to so many persons itself does not mean that this accused person is having intention to cause any loss to the Govt.of India as well as he has gained from opening of account by the employees.
93. PW-27 deposed as per the say of this accused, he has started industrial salt business. However, he has not dealt with industrial salt business. This evidence is also not possible to accept that, accused No.4 has supplied any Muriate of Potash (MOP) to A-5 . PW-28 deposed about the facts of the case as well as one Santhosh Verma working in Bommasandra Indl.Area . As per the instruction of Santhosh Verma he has written the bills etc.. He never deposed that he was working under A-4 as well as per the instruction of A-4, he has written the bills etc.. He further states that Ajay Electricals never dealt / 93 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 with the industrial salt business. Such being the case, it is not possible to ascertain that any transaction between A-4 as well as Ajay Electricals. The evidence of Pw-31 is also not reflected on the say of this accused he has supplied any materials to A-5 company. This witness further deposed that A-4 has never asked him to supply any fertilizer or any restricted items, evidence of this witness is also not helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
94. PW-33 deposed the same set of facts as it was stated by PW-28. He further deposed that he has received Rs.30,000/-P.M. from A-4. Accused No.4 was having godown at Bommasandra Indl.Area and he was supervising the godown but as per the documents available on record, it is noticed that accused No.5 has taken the said godown. The name of this accused is not find place in the lease agreement or any other relevant documents or records to show that, this accused No.4 has obtained premises as a godown. The evidence of PW-38 who is employee opened an account in Karur Vysya Bank deposed about the opening of account as well as it is operated by him. Though he has stated that he has handed over some cheques to the servant of A-4, it is clearly noticed that, this accused persons has never used cheques belongs to this witness. He further deposed that, above transactions were dealt by Vijaykumar Bora. Such being the case, in my opinion, / 94 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 merely on the say of A-4, this witness has opened an account and obtained the cheques issued in the name of employees of A-4, it does not mean that, this accused has tried to gain from the account of this witness. The entire documents as well as testimony of the prosecution witnesses noticed that, this accused has never received any amount from the A-5 or A-1 to his own account as well as he has not supplied any restricted item from Raichur to Bangalore. The person who has transported the material examined in this case as PW-39. He deposed that, as per the order placed by Vijayalakshmi Transports,Raichur , he has transported the materials to Bangalore. As such in my opinion, when there is no document by the side of the prosecution to show that this accused has supplied any restricted item Muriate of Potash (MOP) to export by the A-5 company then, the question does not arise that, this accused has involved in illegal transaction with A-5. It is nodoubt, employees of A-4 opened an account in the Karur Vysya Bank and transacted with accounts. The documents submitted to the Bank Manager never disclose that, this accused actively participated in operating the accounts of the employees as well as he has withdrawn any amount in these accounts . More over the cheques belongs to account holder never disclose that this accused has put any signature or he has handed over the cheques to any person for payment etc.. Such being the case, in my opinion, on the say of the employees of this / 95 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 accused and cheques, RTGS forms and bank opening forms , are not possible to hold that this accused transacted with the accounts of the employees. None of the employees deposed that, they have opened an accounts on the influence of this accused. They never deposed that, they have handed over all the cheques by putting signature and it is misused by the accused. At the same time, the I.O. has clearly admitted during the course of evidence that, he has not recorded the statement of registered fertilizer dealer in various places. He has not collected documents from Govt.of India authority how much quantity of Muriate of Potash (MOP) has been allotted to the registered dealers. One of the prosecution witness deposed before this court that, there is no such Muriate of Potash (MOP) material was produced in Karnataka State . Such being the case, it has to be imported by the Central Govt. and allotted to the registered dealer. The supply of Muriate of Potash (MOP) is for agricultural use for the farmers. There are no material by the side to the prosecution to show that, the Central Govt. has purchased Muriate of Potash (MOP) from other countries as well as allotted to the registered dealers at Sindhnoor, Raichur, Koppal and Hassan . There is no scrap of paper by the prosecution to show that, this accused actively participated in the alleged crime as well as he has supplied Muriate of Potash (MOP) to A-1. Merely voluminous bank documents submitted and got marked by the prosecution itself does / 96 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 not mean that, this accused has committed the offence. More over the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as documents, does not reveal that this accused is having any intention to cheat the Govt.of India . He has tried to obtain restricted item Muriate of Potash (MOP) from some other registered dealers. Thereafter he has supplied to A-5 company. There is no such material available on record to show that, this accused is having any documents to purchase the restricted item as well as he has supplied to the A-5 company. As such, I come to the conclusion that, on the say of the prosecution witnesses as well as documents available on record, it is not possible to hold that this accused person has supplied registered item Muriate of Potash (MOP) to A-5 and gained as stated by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that, the Customs Department Superintendent visited the house and office of the accused and made an enquiry as well as conducted panchanama . He has never recovered any single paper to show that, this accused is having any documents to supply the materials to A-5. As such, I come to the conclusion that, the evidence and documents available on record are not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt given to the accused. Accordingly, I answer the above point No.5 in the negative.
/ 97 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
96. Point No.6 :- In view of my finding to the point No.1 to 5 as above, I pass the following :
ORDER Acting Under Section 248[2] of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 , 2 and 5 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Section-120(B) r/w/s 420, 465, 471 of IPC. Sec.132, 135, 135(A) of Customs Act, 1962 and Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act,1955 r/w Sec.25(1) & (2) of Fertilizer Controller Order, 1985. and they are convicted.
Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.3 and 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section. 120(B) r/w/s 420, 465, 471 of IPC. Sec.132, 135, 135(A) of Customs Act, 1962 and Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Sec.25(1) & (2) of Fertilizer Controller Order, 1985.
The bail bond and surety bond of A3 and A4 stand cancelled.
To hear on sentence.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, and some text of the judgement dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, transcript corrected and then signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 27th day of March, 2015.] (SABAPPA) XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl.Court of CBI Cases:Bangalore.
/ 98 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
28-03-2015.
ORDERS ON HEARING OF SENTENCE.
Accused No.1 and 2 are present. The Learned counsel Sri.H.M.M. for the accused No.1 and 2 is present and submitted argument regarding the sentence that the accused No.2 being the lady, she is working as teacher and having two small kids. They are permanent resident of Bangalore. If they are sentenced to imprisonment, it would cause greater hardship to them.. Therefore prayed to take lenient view while passing the sentence.
APP is also present. Heard the arguments. Learned APP for the prosecution submitted that, the accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences which are serious in nature and they have caused economical loss to the Govt. of India and therefore maximum punishment may be imposed and the accused No.1 and 2 be sentenced accordingly.
/ 99 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 On hearing the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 and also learned APP, and also on hearing the accused No.1 and 2 regarding the sentence, I am of the opinion that the accused No. 1 and 2 who are found guilty for the offences under Sections- 120(B) r/w/s 420, 465, 471 of IPC. Sec.132, 135, 135(A) of Customs Act, 1962 and Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act,1955 r/w Sec.25(1) & (2) of Fertilizer Controller Order, 1985. which are all the offences touching the economy of the State. I have also perused Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offender's Act. In my opinion, in such a case benefit under P.O. Act cannot be extended. The accused No.1 and 2 have been convicted for the first time under the Customs Act. The customs department has already imposed penalty on the accused as well as confiscated the material belongs to accused. At the same time, this court has to consider the age of the accused No.1 and 2. Accused No.1 is aged about 60 years, accused No.2 is aged about 45 years.
/ 100 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Therefore, considering the above circumstances and as the accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences mentioned above, I hold that a period of jail sentence is necessary in the present set of facts.
In the present set of facts, on hearing the arguments submitted by both sides and considering the grounds submitted by accused No.2, this Court has taken the lenient view and pass the following order :
ORDER
1) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 120-B of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 02 months.
2) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-
/ 101 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 03 months.
3)Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 465 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-
each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 03 months.
4) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 471 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-
each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 02 months.
5) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 132 of Customs Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 03 months.
/ 102 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
6) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 135 of Customs Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 03 months.
7) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 135(A) of Customs Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 03 months.
8) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 01 month.
/ 103 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 In all the accused No.1 and 2 shall pay a total fine of Rs.32,000/-( Rs.Thirty two thousand only).
All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
Supply a free copy of Judgment to the accused No.1 and 2 forthwith.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, script corrected and then signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this 28th day of March,2015.] [SABAPPA] XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl.Court for CBI Cases: Bangalore.
/ 104 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
ANNEXURE :
I. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution :-
PW 1 :C.L.Hedaoo 7-3-2014
PW 2: Dr.Raghavendra R.V. 7-3-2014
PW 3 :Smt.SandyaDamodhar 7-3-2014
PW 4: Smt. Elizabeth M.Gomes 7-3-2014
PW 5: R.M.Harish 7-4-2014
PW 6: P.Anatha Krishnan 7-4-2014
PW 7: Binnu Mathew 7-4-2014.
PW 8: K.T.Pakshi Raju 8-4-2014.
PW 9: M.Venkatesh 8-4-2014.
PW10: Sathish 9-4-2014.
PW11: A.Kamalaksha 9-4-2014.
PW12: Kumar N 9.4.2014.
PW13 :H.L.Sreenath 6-6-2014
PW14: G.Ramaswamy 6-6-2014.
PW15: Smt. M.R.Suma 6-6-2014.
PW16: B.Ramachandra 21-7-2014.
PW17: G.Chetan 21-7-2014
PW18: Smt.Raja Sulochana 21-7-2014.
PW19: Venkat Narayan Hari Babu 22-7-2014.
PW20: Manikha 22-7-2014
PW21: Srinivas Prasad 22-7-2014.
PW22 :S.Vasudevan 22-7-2014.
PW23: B.Durga Prasad 23-7-2014.
PW24: K.S.Chidanand 23-7-2014.
PW25: Srinivasa RAo 23-7-2014.
PW26: Smt.K.Kamala Kumari 23-7-2014.
PW27: Ajay Kumar Bohra 4-8-2014.
PW28: Chandrakumar Bohra 4-8-2014.
Pw29: Ashwin Jungade 4-8-2014.
PW30 :Dhinunjaya V Rao 4-8-2014.
PW31: Vikram Kumar Saklech 4-8-2014.
PW32: Mallappa 4-8-2014.
PW33: Dilip kumar Bohra 6-8-2014.
PW34: K.Motilal 6-8-2014.
PW35: G.Mallikarjun 7-8-2014.
PW36: N.Madhusudan Reddy 7-8-2014.
PW37: Sunil kumar reddy 7-8-2014.
PW38: Srinivas 2-9-2014.
PW39 : K.Siddaaju 2-9-2014.
PW40: Smt.Nethravathi 2-9-2014.
/ 105 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
PW41: R.D.Adsul 2-9-2014.
PW42 :Veeranna 3-9-2014.
PW43: Maruti 3-9-2014.
PW44: P.Venkateshalu 3-9-2014.
PW45; Navneeth@ Chintu 3-9-2014
PW46 :P.Sudhakar 4-9-2014.
PW47: M.H.Madan 4-9-2014
PW48 Dilip kumar 5-9-2014.
PW49 P.Prabhu Shankar 5-9-2014.
PW50: Veer kumar 5-9-2014.
PW51: H.R.Srinivas 16-9-14
PW52: Muralidharan D. 19-9-14
PW53: V.Sureshkumar 19-9-14.
PW54: N.Raghavendrakumar 19-9-14
PW55: Vivekanand G.Tulasageri
II. List of witnesses examined for the defence :-
DW-1 C.Prasad III. Documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Covering letter dt. 24-6-10
Ex.P.1a: signature of PW-1.
Ex.P.2: Notification dtd. 27-8-2009
Ex.P.2a signature of pw-1
Ex.P.3: Notification dtd 28-1-04.
Ex.P.3a: signature of pw-1
Ex.P.4 Notification dtd. 13-8-02
Ex.P.4a signature of pw-1
Ex.P.5: Chapter 31 of Fertilizer Import Trade control
Ex.P.5a: signature of pw-1
Ex.P.6: letter dtd. 5-3-10
Ex.P.7: Audit report
Ex.P.7a: signature of pw-1
Ex.P.8: chapter 28 of ITCC
Ex.P.9: Extract of ITCC
Ex.P.10: Application form
Ex.P.11: Profile of import & export
Ex.P.12; Receipt
Ex.P.13: receipt
/ 106 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Ex.P.14: Allotment letter
Ex.P.14a: signature of Shakuntala Naik
Ex.P.15: check sheet for import export code
Ex.P.16: forwarding letter
Ex.P.17: declaration
Ex.P.18: Certificate
Ex.P.19: allotment letter of PAN
Ex.P.20: MOA and AOA of live Ads
Ex.P.21: covering letter dt 20-5-11.
Ex.P.21a: signature of pw-1
Ex.P.22: Seized Memo dt. 24-5-11
Ex.P.22a signature of pw-1
Ex.P.23: letter dtd. 20-5-11.
Ex.P.24: Report
Ex.P.24a: signature of pw-2
Ex.P.25: Letter
Ex.P.26: Covering letter
Ex.P.26a: signature of pw-2.
Ex.P.27: Requisition report
Ex.P.28: Report
Ex.P.29: Requisition of Live ads
Ex.P.30: Report
Ex.P.30a: signature of Pw-4.,
Ex.P.31: requisition of live ads
Ex.P.32: report
Ex.P.32a: signature of Geetha
Ex.P.33: requisition of live ads
Ex.P.34: Report
Ex.P.35
To P42: 8 reports
Ex.P.43
To 50: 8 bills for paying the payment for testing Ex.P.51: Receipt.
Ex.P.51a signature of Binny Mathew
Ex.P.52: Receipt memo
Ex.P.52a: Signature of Binny Mathew
Ex.P.53: payment details
Ex.P.53a: Signature of Varghese
Ex.P.54: seizure memo
Ex.P.55: Letter dtd. 27-5-11
Ex.P.56: Letter dtd. 27-5-11
Ex.P.57: Receipt memo dtd 13-2-12
Ex.P.57a: signature of pw-6
/ 107 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Ex.P.58: Letter dtd 13-2-12
Ex.P.59: customs manual and relevant circular
Ex.P.60: Letter dtd 16-2-12
Ex.P.60a: signature of pw-6
Ex.P.61: statement
Ex.P.61a signature of pw-6
Ex.P.61b: signature of A-1
Ex.P.62: mahazar
Ex.P.62a signature of pw-6
Ex.P.62b
c,d: signature of pw-6
Ex.P.63: Shippling bill No. 2224156
Ex.P.63
(a) to (c ) Invoice, packing list , certificate of origin Ex.P.63(d): signature of A-1 Ex.P.64: Shipping bill No.2240091 Ex.P.64(d): signature of A-1 Ex.P.65: Shipping bill No.2231587 dt. 14-5-2009. Ex.P.65a to c:Invoice, packing list , certificate of origin Ex.P.65d: signature of A-1 Ex.P.66: Shipping Bill No.2219403 dt 17-2-09 Ex.P.66
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.66(f): signature of A-1 Ex.P.67: Shipping Bill No. 2219404 dtd 17-2-2009 Ex.P.67
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.67(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.68: Shipping Bill No. 2221175 dtd 28-2-09 Ex.P.68
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.68(f): Signature of A-1 / 108 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Ex.P.69: Shipping Bill No. 2221722 dtd 3-3-09 Ex.P.69
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.69(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.70: Shipping Bill No. 2221723 dtd 3-3-09 Ex.P.70
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.70(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.71: Shipping Bill No. 22221888 dtd 11-3-09 Ex.P.71
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.71(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.72: Shipping Bill No. 2222889 dtd 11-3-09 Ex.P.72
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.72(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.73: Shipping Bill No. 2222891 dtd 11-3-09 Ex.P.73
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.73(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.74: Shipping Bill No. 2224154 dtd 20-3-09 Ex.P.74
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.74(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.75: Shipping Bill No. 2224156 dtd 20-3-09 Ex.P.75
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.75(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.76: Shipping Bill No. 2226386 dtd 2-4-09 Ex.P.76
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form / 109 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Export value declaration Ex.P.76(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.77: Shipping Bill No. 2226550 dtd 2-4-09 Ex.P.77
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.77(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.78: Shipping Bill No. 2222889 dtd 11-3-09 Ex.P.78
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.78(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.79: shipping bill No.2227478 dt 13-5-2009 Ex.P.79
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.79(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.80: shipping bill No. 2227507 dtd 13-4-2009
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.80(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.81: shipping bill No. 2228093
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.81(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.82: shipping bill No. 2228094
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.82(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.83: shipping bill No. 2228096
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.83(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.84: shipping bill No. 2228097
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.84(f): Signature of A-1 / 110 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 Ex.P.85: shipping bill No. 2229484
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.85(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.86: shipping bill No. 2230341
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.86(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.87: shipping bill No. 2230694
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.87(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.88: shipping bill No. 2231173
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.88(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.89: shipping bill No. 2231586
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.89(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.90: shipping bill No. 2231851
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.90(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.91: shipping bill No. 2232019
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.91(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.92: shipping bill No. 2232030
(a) to (e): Invoice, packing list, Annexure C SDF form Export value declaration Ex.P.92(f): Signature of A-1 Ex.P.93 to:
Ex.P. 102: shipping bills
Ex.P.103: form
Ex.P.103a: signature of the witness
Ex.P.104: form
Ex.P.104a signature
/ 111 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
a.105: form
Ex.P.105a: signature
Ex.P.106: mahazar
Ex.P.106a: signature
Ex.P.107: mahazar
Ex.P.107a:signature
Ex.P.108: mahazar
Ex.P.108a: signature
Ex.P.109: mahazar
Ex.P.109: signature
Ex.P.110 to 113: 4 photos
Ex.P.114: covering letter
Ex.P.115: statement of bill details
Ex.P.116: Covering letter
Ex.P.116a: signature of PW10
Ex.P.117 to
119 : 3 export applications
Ex.P.120: Seizure memo
Ex.P.120a: signature
Ex.P.121
To 123; 3 export applications
Ex.P.124: security register
Ex.P.125: Security register maintainer
Ex.P.126: search list
Ex.P.127: bunch of documents
Ex.P.128: Receipt memo
Ex.P.128a: signature
Ex.P.129: Lease deed
Ex.P.130: MOA
Ex.P.131: Building plan
Ex.P.132: Receipt Memo
Ex.P.132a: signature
Ex.P.133: covering letter
Ex.P.133a: signature
Ex.P.134
To 136: 3 reports
Ex.P.137: DDA
Ex.P.137a: signature
Ex.P.138: letter
Ex.P.139; 13 notifications
Ex.P.140: another receipt memo
Ex.P.140a: signature
Ex.P.141: seizure memo
/ 112 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Ex.P.141a signature
Ex.P.142: form K
Ex.P.143: form P
Ex.P.144: analysis report
Ex.P.144a: signature
Ex.P.145: panchanama dtd 13-8-2009
Ex.P.146: panchanama
Ex.P.146a: signature
Ex.P.147: statement of A-4
Ex.P.147a: signature
Ex.P.147b: signature of A4
Ex.P.148: mahazar
Ex.P.148a: signature
Ex.P.148b: signature of A1
Ex.P.148c: signature of CW41
Ex.P.149: bunch of files.
Ex.P.150: statement
Ex.P.150a: signature
Ex.P.150b: signature
Ex.P.151: mahazar
Ex.P.152: Letter
Ex.P.152a: signature of ACCT
Ex.P.153: proceedings sheet
Ex.P.154: application in form No.1
Ex.P.155: form NO.1
Ex.P.156: form NO.2
Ex.P.157: passport of A-1
Ex.P.158: original VAT certificate
Ex.P.159: bunch of documents
Ex.P.160: mahazar
Ex.P.160a: signature
Ex.P.161: letter
Ex.P.162 letter
Ex.P.163: letter
Ex.P.164: receipt memo
Ex.P.164a: signature
Ex.P.165: covering letter
Ex.P.165a: signature
Ex.P.166: account statement
Ex.P.167: account statement
Ex.P.168: account statement
Ex.P.169: account statement
/ 113 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Ex.P.170: account statement
Ex.P.171
To 175: 5 certificates
Ex.P.176: receipt memo
Ex.P.177: covering letter
Ex.P.177a: signature
Ex.P.178: Suspicious transaction report
Ex.P.179: account opening form
Ex.P.180: two cheques
Ex.P.180a: signature
Ex.P.181: RTGS challans
Ex.P.182: RTGS challans.
Ex.P.183: cheque
Ex.P.183a: signature of Ashwin Jangada
Ex.P.184: RTGS challan
Ex.P.185: cheque
Ex.P.185a: signature
Ex.P.186: RTGS challan
Ex.P.187: cheque
Ex.P.187a: signature
Ex.P.188: RTGS challan
Ex.P.189
& 190:two cheques
Ex.P.189a
Ex.P.190a: signatures
Ex.P.191: account opening form
Ex.P.192: cheque
Ex.P.193: RTGS challan
Ex.P.194: cheque
Ex.P.195: RTGS challan
Ex.P.196:
& 197:two cheques
Ex.P.196a
197a: signatures
Ex.P.198: account opening form
Ex.P.199: cheque 28-4-09.
Ex.P.200: RTGS challan
Ex.P.201: cheque
Ex.P.202: RTGS challan
Ex.P.203: cheque
Ex.P.204: RTGS challan
/ 114 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Ex.P.205: cheque
Ex.P.206: RTGS challna
Ex.P.207 to
Ex.P.219: 13 self cheques
Ex.P.220: account opening form
Ex.P.221: cheque
Ex.P.222: RTGS challan
Ex.P.223: cheque dt. 20-3-09
Ex.P.224: RTGS Challan
Ex.P.225; cheque
Ex.P.226: RTGS challan
Ex.P.227: cheque
Ex.P.228: RTGS challan
Ex.P.229 to
Ex.P.239: cheques
Ex.P.229 a
To 239a: signature
Ex.P.240: account opening form
Ex.P.241: cheque
Ex.P.242: RTGS challan
Ex.P.243: cheque
Ex.P.244: RTGS challan
Ex.P.245: cheque
Ex.P.246: RTGS challan
Ex.P.247: cheque
Ex.P.248: RTGS challan
Ex.P.249: cheque
Ex.P.250: RTGS challan
Ex.P.251: cheque
Ex.P.252: RTGS challan
Ex.P.253: cheque
Ex.P.254: RTGS challan
Ex.P.255: cheque
Ex.P.256: RTGS challan
Ex.P.257: 20 self cheques
To 276:
Ex.P.277: CC copy of statement of account
Ex.P.278: certificate
Ex.P.279: covering letter
Ex.P.279a: signature
Ex.P.280: receipt memo
Ex.P.280a: signature
Ex.P.281: account opening form
/ 115 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Ex.P.282: account statement of veera kumar
Ex.P.282a: signature
Ex.P.283: current account opening form
Ex.P.284: cheque
Ex.P284a, 286a, 289a, 291a, 293a, 295a, 297a, 299a, 301: Signatures Ex.P.285: RTGS challan Ex.P.284: cheque Ex.P.285: RTGS challan Ex.P.286: cheque Ex.P.287& Ex.P.288: RTGS challan Ex.P.289: cheque Ex.P.290: RTGS challan Ex.P.291: cheque Ex.P.292: RTGS challan Ex.P.293: cheque Ex.P.294: RTGS challan Ex.P.295: cheque Ex.P.296: RTGS challan Ex.P.297: cheque Ex.P.298: RTGS challan Ex.P.299: cheque Ex.P.300: RTGS challan Ex.P.301: cheque Ex.P.302: RTGS challan Ex.P.303:
To 333: 31 self cheques
Ex.P.334 &
& 335
Ex.P.336: current account opening form
Ex.P.337: account extract
Ex.P.338: cheque
Ex.P.339: RTGS challan
Ex.P.340: cheque
Ex.P.341: RTGS challan
Ex.P.342: cheque
Ex.P.343: RTGS challan
Ex.P.344: cheque
/ 116 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Ex.P.345: RTGS challan
Ex.P.346: cheque
Ex.P.347: RTGS challan
Ex.P.348: cheque
Ex.P.349: RTGS challan
Ex.P.350
To 354: 5 self cheques
Ex.P.355: SB account opening form
Ex.P.356: current opening form
Ex.P.357: statement of account
Ex.P.358: cheque
Ex.P.359: RTGS challan
Ex.P.360: cheque
Ex.P.361: RTGS challan
Ex.P.362: cheque
Ex.P.363: RTGS challan
Ex.P.364: cheque
Ex.P.365: RTGS challan
Ex.P.366: cheque
Ex.P.367: RTGS challan
Ex.P.368
to 381: 14 self cheques
Ex.P.382: current account opening form
Ex.P.383: statement of account
Ex.P.384: cheque
Ex.P.385:
& 386 RTGS challan
Ex.P.387: cheque
Ex.P.388: RTGS chalan
Ex.P.389: cheque
Ex.P.390: RTGS challan
Ex.P.391
& 392 :2 cheques
/ 117 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Ex.P.393
To 420 :28 self cheques
Ex.P.421: coveringletter
Ex.P.422: receipt memo
Ex.P.423: statementof account
Ex.P.424: statement of SB account
Ex.P.425: statement of current account
Ex.P.426: statement of account of veerkumar
Ex.P.427: statement of account
Ex.P.428: statement of account
Ex.P.429
To 434: 6 certificates
Ex.P.435: covering letter
Ex.P.435a: signature
Ex.P.436; account statement of A-5
Ex.P.437: certificate
Ex.P.437a: signature
Ex.P.438: current account opening form
Ex.P.439: RTGS details
Ex.P.440: statement of account of Suresh Ratinam
Ex.P.441: certificate
Ex.P.442: RTGS details
Ex.P.443: details of bank remittances
Ex.P.444: certificate of foreign inward remittance
Ex.P.444a: signature
Ex.P.445: portion
Ex.P.446: covering letter
Ex.P.447: receipt memo
Ex.P.447a: signature
Ex.P.448: MOA, sketch of building etc. documents
Ex.P.449: account opening form
Ex.P.450: statement of account
Ex.P.451: portion
Ex.P.452: covering letter
Ex.P.452a: signature
Ex.P.453 :notary attested copy
Ex.P.454: receipt memo
Ex.P.454a: signature
Ex.P.455: note book
Ex.P.456: documents with covering letter
Ex.P.457: reg. certificate of vehicle with documents
Ex.P.458: rough register
Ex.P.459: receipt memo
/ 118 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Ex.P.459a: signature
Ex.P460
To 521: Cheque and RTGS challans
Ex.P.522: lorry documents
Ex.P.523: receipt memo
Ex.P.523a: receipt memo
Ex.P.524: seizure memo
Ex.P.525: covering letter
Ex.P.526: CC of MOA
Ex.P.527: cc of AOA of A-5
Ex.P.528: declaration in form No.1 of A5
Ex.P.529: declaration in form No.1 of A5
Ex.P.530: form No.32
Ex.P.531: form NO.18 of A5
Ex.P.532: letter
Ex.P.532a: signature
Ex.P.533: account opening form
Ex.P.534: statement of account
Ex.P.535: statement
Ex.P537: covering letter dt 18-8-11
Ex.P538: Certificate U/s.2(A) of Bankers Book of
Evidence Act
Ex.P.539: SB account opening form
Ex.P.540: cheque
Ex.P.540a: signature
Ex.P.541: NEFT requests form
Ex.P.541a: signature
Ex.P.542: Cheque
Ex.P.542a signature
Ex.P.543: RTGS request form
Ex.P.543a: signature
Ex.P.544: statement of account of ING Vysya bank
Ex.P.545: portion
Ex.P.546: covering letter
Ex.P.546a : signature of the then Br. Manager
Ex.P.547: receipt memo
Ex.P.548: certificate
Ex.P.548a: signature
Ex.P549: Letter dt 26-7-12
Ex.P549a: Signature
Ex.P550: Receipt memo
Ex.P.550a: Signature
Ex.P551: photograph
/ 119 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Ex.P552: FIR
Ex.P552a: signature
Ex.P553: Documents and photos
Ex.P553(a) signature of PW-55
Ex.P554: specimen signature documents of CW39
Ex.P554a: signature
Ex.P555: Account opening form
Ex.P556: Lease agreement
Ex.P557: GEQD opinion
Ex.P558: covering letter dt 21-3-13.
Ex.P559: Sanction letter.
IV. List of documents exhibited for defence :-
Ex.D-1 Letter dtd. 20-06-2011.
Ex.D-2 Letter dtd. 14-07-2011.
XVII Addl.C.M.M.
Spl.Court for CBI Cases,
Bangalore.
/ 120 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
27-3-2015
Judgment pronounced in the open court ( vide separately) ORDER Acting Under Section 248[2] of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 , 2 and 5 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Section-120(B) r/w/s 420, 465, 471 of IPC. Sec.132, 135, 135(A) of Customs Act, 1962 and Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act,1955 r/w Sec.25(1) & (2) of Fertilizer Controller Order, 1985. and they are convicted.
Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.3 and 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section. 120(B) r/w/s 420, 465, 471 of IPC. Sec.132, 135, 135(A) of Customs Act, 1962 and Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Sec.25(1) & (2) of Fertilizer Controller Order, 1985.
The bail bond and surety bond of A3 and A4 stand cancelled.
To hear on sentence.
(SABAPPA) XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl.Court of CBI Cases:Bangalore.
/ 121 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
28-03-2015
Orders on sentence.
ORDERS ON SENTENCE PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ( vide separately )
ORDER
1) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 120-B of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 02 months.
2)Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 03 months.
3)Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under / 122 / C.C.No. 21056/2012 section 465 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-
each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 03 months.
4) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 471 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-
each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 02 months.
5) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 132 of Customs Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 03 months.
6) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 135 of Customs Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 03 months.
/ 123 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
7) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 135(A) of Customs Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 03 months.
8) Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced and they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo S.I. for 01 month.
In all the accused No.1 and 2 shall pay a total fine of Rs.32,000/-( Rs.Thirty two thousand only).
All the substantive sentences shall run
concurrently.
/ 124 / C.C.No. 21056/2012
Supply a free copy of Judgment to the
accused No.1 and 2 forthwith.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, script corrected and then signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this 28th day of March,2015.] [SABAPPA] XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Spl.Court for CBI Cases: Bangalore.