Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . M/S Bothra Rugs P Ltd. on 11 July, 2014
RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. DOD: 11.07.2014 IN THE COURT OF POORAN CHAND: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI RC No.: 11/88 PS: CBI/SIU-IX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. CBI Vs. M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. Unique ID No.: 02401R0872892005 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 331/2
(b) Name of complainant : Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, office of Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports , Cental Licensing Area, Pearless Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence: In the year 1985
(d) Name of the accused : (1) M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd.
7, Amar Chambers, Nahar
House, 14-15 F, Connaught
Place, New Delhi and 4161,
Naya Bazar, Delhi.
(2) Sh. Hanuman Mal Bothra @
H.M. Bothra, Directors of M/s
Bothra Rugs P Ltd., 4161
Naya Bazar, Delhi-6 and
F-185A, Laxmi Nagar, Shakar
Pur, Delhi. (since died
proceedings against him
stood abated vide order
dated 03.07.2014)
(3) Sh. Sohan Kumar Bothra @
CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 1 of 23
RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 S.K. Bothra, Director of M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd, Delhi-6 and D-194, Vivek Vihar, Delhi-32.
(4) Smt. Lila Bothra, Director of
M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd.,
4161, Naya Bazar, Delhi-6
and F-185-A, Laxmi Nagar,
Shakar Pur, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : 120-B/420 IPC r/w section 5
of Import and Exports
(Control) Act, 1947
(f) Offence Charge : 120-B r/w section 5
of Import and Exports
(Control) Act, 1947
(g) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(h) Final arguments heard on : 25.05.2014.
(i) Final Order : Convicted
(j) Date of such order : 11.07.2014.
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
An advance license no. P/K/3042828 dated 07.01.1985 was got issued by the office of Joint Chief Controller of Import and Exports, CLA, Inder Prastha Bhawan, New Delhi in the name of M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. (hereinafter called the accused company) on fulfilling the necessary formalities by its Directors namely Hanuman Mal Bothra (since deceased) and Smt. Leela Bothra. The said license was issued for import of 20000 Kgs. of brass scrapes to India with the condition that custom duty on the said import shall be exempted. In the license one of the condition is that accused company shall export 20000 Kgs of brass handicraft for an FOB CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 2 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 value of Rs. 9,00,000/- within a period of six months from the date of clearance of first consignment. The exemption in the import duty was given to the company by the Government with a view to facilitate the export of handicraft. There was also one of the condition that accused company should send quarterly report to the licensing authority, giving details of export made against the license, goods manufactured and the goods exported in discharge of the export obligation imposed on the license. The accused H.M. Bothra and Leela Bothra (both Directors) also submitted legal undertaking (LUT) to the office of Chief Controller of Import and Exports that they would fulfill the import obligation at least for a sum of Rs. 6,20,400/-.
2 Accused company imported the above quantity of brass scrapes and the said imported material was cleared from the Bombay Port on 20.04.1985 through clearing agent M/s Gokul Dass Hansraj Shipping P Ltd. Bombay and the same was transported to Delhi through M/s Kay See Carriers Bombay. Though the accused imported the brass scrapes but does not fulfill the condition of the license i.e. export of 20000 Kgs of brass handicraft for an FOB value of Rs. 9,00,000/- within a period of six months from the date of clearance of first consignment. The accused persons also did not intimate the licensing authority about the non fulfilment of export obligation nor sought any extension. Since the accused did not produce any export documents before the licensing authority, the Joint Chief Controller of Import and Exports, New Delhi issued show cause notice on 09.07.1986 and thereafter, order of forfeiture of LUT was passed was passed on 19.08.1986. As the condition of the license was not fulfilled by the accused company, Sh. M.M. Rehani, Deputy Chief Controller of Import and Export, office of the Chief Controller of Import and Export, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi wrote a complaint to CBI for violation of the said condition and on the basis of said complaint present RC bearing No. 11 (S)/88 was registered u/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and after registration of the FIR criminal CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 3 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 law came into motion. After the investigation CBI came to the conclusion that no offence u/s 420 IPC was disclosed. A complaint under section 120-B r/w section 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 by Sh L.M. Lakra, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, office of Joint Chief Controller of Import and exports, CLA, Pearless Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi was filed in the court. It comes out from the complaint that accused persons conspired during the period 1984-85 and in pursuance thereof, they agreed to obtained advance license in the name of accused company and used said license for import of brass scrapes under duty exemption scheme and further misutilized / sold the imported material in contravention of the condition of the license by not fulfilling the export obligation.
3 On the basis of the above complaint the Predecessor of this court took cognizance and case was proceeded as complaint case. Pre- charge evidence were led by the prosecution and thereafter, charge u/s 120-B r/w section 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act) was framed against all the accused persons.
4 After recording all the prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Despite giving opportunities to all the accused persons, they did not lead any defence evidence.
5 I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by the Ld. APP for the CBI, counsels for accused and perused the entire material on record.
6 Before adverting to adjudication upon the arguments advanced at Bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter, which is as under.
7 PW 1 M.M. Rehani deposed that he was Deputy Chief Controller of CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 4 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 Imports and Exports from 1.11.1986 and the letter dated 28.12.1988 addressed to CBI against M/s Bothra Rugs Pvt. Ltd bore his signature at point A and the said letter is Ex. PW 1/1. He further deposed that this complaint was lodged with CBI since M/s Bothra Rugs Pvt. Ltd failed to fulfill export obligations against advanced license given to them.
8 PW 2 Prem Singh Bisht deposed that in 1984-85 he was posted as licensing assistant in advance license section. He deposed that as a licensing assistant his duties were to examine and deal with application for grant of advance license. He deposed that he has seen file mark X no.
Adv/license/UDES/257/AM-85/CLA/ALS-I and this file pertained to grant of advance license to M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. He deposed that application dated 17.10.1984 was received in their office on 19.10.1984 for grant of advance license to M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. The application is marked X/1. The application prescribed form is marked X/2 dully supported by treasury challan mark X/3, form for income tax declaration mark X/4 in duplication, certificate of CA mark X/5, buyers order marked X/6, registration cum membership certificate issued from handicraft for mark X/7, the form applied for grant of advance license vide application mark X-2 for importing brass scrapes CIF value Rs. 3,40,000/-. He further deposed that the said import was to facilitate the export of handicraft and the application of the firm was given receipt no. 168949 as mentioned in mark X/1. He further deposed that application of the firm was processed by him and in this regard his entry at page 3 of the check sheet which bore his signatures at point A on Ex. PW2/1. He further deposed that Sh. H.S. Oswa then, Asst. Chief Controller enquired vide his note mark B in Ex. PW2/1 as to period of delivery and a letter to this effect was accordingly issued to the parties which bore signatures of H.S. Oswal and he identified his signatures. The office copy of the letter is Ex. PW2/2 and reply to this effect of the party is mark X8. He further deposed that on 29.12.84 Sh. H.S. Oswal issued the approval of advance license and his noting to this effect is Ex. PW2/3 which bore the signatures of Sh. H.S. Oswal at point A and the proposal of Sh. Oswal was further approved by Senior officer and thereafter, license was issued. He also deposed that on 07.01.1985 license no. 4/K/3042828 CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 5 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 dated 07.01.1985 for Rs. 2,40,000/- for the import of brass scrap was issued under the signatures of H.L. Oswal and he identified his signatures on custom purpose of copy of the license at point A which is Ex. PW2/4. He deposed that condition sheet attached to this license also bore signatures of H.L. Oswal on Ex. PW2/5 and license was issued subject to condition as mentioned in Ex. PW2/5. Exchange control copy of the license also bore the signatures of Sh. H.L. Oswal on Ex. PW2/6 and along with advance license two duty exemption entitlement certificate bearing no. 011875 for import and 011876 for export were also issued, both DEC book bore the signatures of M.L. Oswal which is Ex PW2/7 and Ex. PW2/8, DEC books were issued to the parties to get entered import and export by custom officer. He deposed that he has seen Ex. PW2/6 and according to this, firm imported raw material worth Rs. 236355.50 P as per EX. PW2/8 part F entry regarding export is nil.
9 PW3 Rajiv Kumar deposed that he was sole Prop. of M/s Rajiv Jain & Co and C.A. company and in 1984 he was also partner with M/s H.Goyal and Co, and Mr. Hari Om Goel was another partner of the firm. He deposed that he has seen the certificate of CA dated 15.09.1984 and it bore his signatures at point A, certificate is Ex. PW3/A also same bore signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra at point B. He deposed that he can identify signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra because he had audited account of their firm Bothra Rugs P Ltd. and Mrs. Leela Bothra wife of Hanuman Mal Bothra was also one of the directors of M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. and Ex. PW3/B bore signatures of Hanuman Bothra at point A, Ex. PW3/C also bore signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra at point A. The treasury challan Ex. PW3/D also bore the signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra at point A. He further deposed that income tax declaration Ex. PW3/E also bore signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra at point A and Ex. PW3/F also bore the signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra at point A. He deposed that buyer order Ex. PW3/G also bore signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra at point A and Ex. PW3/H also bore signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra at point A. Ex. PW3/J also bore the signatures of Haruman Mal Bothra at point A and Ex PW3/K also bore the signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra at point A. He further deposed that letter dated 11.02.1985 CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 6 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 Ex. PW3/L also bore signatures of Hanuman Lal at point A and signatures of Leela Bothra at point B. Ex. PW3/L also signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra at point C and signatures of Leela Bothra at point D. He further deposed that it bore signatures of Hanuman Mal Bothra at point E and Leela Bothra at point F, similarly it bore signatures of Hanuman Bothra at point G and Leela Bothra at point H. He further deposed that legal undertaking/agreement Ex. PW3/M also bore signatures of Hanuman Lal Bothra at point A and Leela Bothra at point B and endorsement on letter dated 14.02.1985 which is Ex. PW3/N bore signatures of H.M. Bothra at point A. 10 PW4 Lalita Parshad Jain deposed that he was Prop. of M/s Lalit Jain and Co which was dealing in non ferrous metal, import and export. He deposed that M/s V.R. Jain and Co. a sister concern with two partners i.e his son Vinay Jain and his wife Smt. Sneh Lata Jain and M/s V.R. Jain & Co. was also dealing in import & export business for the last about 12 years. He further deposed that he was also looking after the affairs of this company and their firm are importing raw material through M/s R.K. Sales & Service Bombay, Mr. N.J. Lobo and Mr. Mahajan of parters of M/s R.K. Sales & Service. He further deposed that the indents for import of raw material was placed with M/s R.K. Sales and Service P Ltd by personally visiting their office and sometimes on telephone. The imported non ferrous metal was sold by them locally at Delhi, Jagadhari and Muradabad and he know M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. with whom he had business dealing in the year 1984-85 through some agents. He deposed that in the year 1984-85 he imported brass scrap on behalf of M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. and the indent for brass scrap was placed with R.K. Sales & Services P Ltd and letter is Ex. PW4/A bore the signatures of Mr. Lobo at point A which he identified. He deposed that PW4/A is a contract with M/s Lucky Agency Dubai which was entered into by M/s R.K. Sales & Services Ltd. on behalf of M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd for import of 19 M/T of brass scrap and he invested a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- for import of 19 M/T of brass scrap by M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. and he paid a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- to Mrs. Leela Bothra in the year 1984. He further deposed that after clearance of the import documents M/s Bothra Rugs received the raw material which was handed CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 7 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 over to him and he disposed off the imported brass scrap in the open market after deduction his commission the balance was paid to M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. through their representative. He proved his signatures on Ex. PW4/B. 11 PW5 Dalip Kumar deposed that during the period April 1984 to January 1989 he was posted as accountant in Canara Bank Overseas Branch, Connaught Place, New Delhi and during the said period he was posted in various departments such as current account, advances and foreign exchange. He deposed that generally Manager of accountant used to accept account opening form and he has seen current account No.67 with Canara Bank Connaught place, in the name of M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. He deposed that application form was sent to their branch by Manager Canara Bank Chandni Chowk attesting the signatures of introducer i.e. Mathura Dass Daulat Ram and on this account opening form there is a seal of the bank but there were no signatures of officer accepting the form. He deposed that along with duplicate specimen signatures card signed by S.K. Bothra, H.M. Bothra and Leela Bothra were also received. He further deposed that the account opening form was accepted by him vide his signatures at point A on Ex. PW5/A, the specimen signatures cards are Ex. PW5/A1 to A3 and statement of account is Ex. PW5/B in two pages. He deposed that signatures mentioned on letter dated 25.03.1985 resemble with Ex. PW5/A1. He deposed that letter Ex PW5/C bore the signatures of H.M. Bothra at point A and vide this letter he has attested the signatures of H.M. Bothra and signed the letter Ex. PW5/C at point B. He deposed that he has seen pay in slip mark B dated 25.03.85 by which a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- was deposited by cash in the account of M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. and the same amount is reflected in Ex.PW5/B at point A. He deposed that Ex. PW2/6 bore the signatures of Satish Naik which he identified.
12 PW6 Ranbir Singh deposed that on 21.06.1989 he was posted as UDC in Central Excise and CBI took his specimen writing and signatures of Smt. Leela Bothra in his presence on 21.06.1989 on sheets which are Ex. PW6/1 to 11 and specimen writings and signatures are in the encircled blue portion and these CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 8 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 are attested by him at point A. 13 PW7 Hira Lal Oswal deposed that in 1984 he was working as Asst. Chief Controller Imports and Exports and he has seen the file pertaining to M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. and he has also seen the file Ex. PW2/1 which contained noting at mark B in his hand. He further deposed that letter Ex. PW2/3 was sent to party, which bore his signatures at point A. He deposed that after the party had complied with the deficiency giving the delivery period of export order, the file was put up for grant of import license and after getting it approved from the Joint Chief Control License no. 3042828 was issued. He further deposed that the firm gave certain legal undertaking for fulfiling the export obligations and the same was accepted and duly endorsed on the license and DEC and he had seen acknowledgment Ex. PW7/A which is signed by Mr. Narain Swamy. He deposed that party did not perform the export obligation inspite of legal undertaking given in this regard and the party had imported the material.
14 PW8 Mukesh Bhatnagar deposed that in 1984-85 he was working as Asst. Chief controller of Import Exports in Delhi and Sh. Sunderlal was his dealing Assistant. He deposed that he used to deal in the case of advance license in respect of exporters who had not furnished documents in respect of the fulfilment of their export obligation. He deposed that he used to monitor their cases and he also go through the file of M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. He deposed that he had seen letter dated 13.03.1986 which was issued to the parties calling for the evidence of fulfilling their export obligation. He deposed that the said letter is Ex. PW8/A and same bear his signatures at point A. The party did not reply and show cause notice was issued under the signatures of Dr. R.K. Dhawan and he identified his signatures on notice Ex PW8/B. He deposed that there was no reply to the show cause notice and thereafter forfeiture order Ex. PW8/C was issued and same bore his signatures.
15 PW9 R.S. Sanehwar deposed that letter dated 20.10.1986 Ex. PW9/A bear his signatures and at that time he was controller of Imports and Exports.
CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 9 of 23RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 16 PW10 N.J. Lobo deposed that he has seen indent Ex. PW4/A and bear his signatures and same was issued in favour of Mrs. Bothra Rugs P Ltd.
17 PW11 B.C. Jagwani deposed that he has seen document Ex. PW2/4 and also seen import license Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that on 08.03.1985 he was working in Bombay Docks as examiner and on the basis of bill of entry no. 637/78 dated 18.03.1985 he can say that brass material was imported by Bothra Rugs P Ltd.
18 PW12 Daulat Ram deposed that he became Patner of M/s Daulat Ram Bal Kishan from 1976 onwards and the account opening form Ex. PW5/A bears his signatures as an introducer at point X. He had signed as introducer on the request of Sohan Kumar Bothra. He further deposed that Hanuman Bothra was the brother of Sohan Kumar Bothra. He did not remember whether he had gone to the bank and he could not say who had given the form to sign the same. He further deposed that they had account in Canara Bank Chandni Chowk Branch, in which the said account was opened.
19 PW13 Neeraj Kumar Jain posted as clerk Andhra Bank, Sadar Bazar Branch deposed that he had seen the draft application form Ex. PW13/A bearing no. 953/1514/85 dated 29.04.1985 issued in favour of Gokal Dass Hans Raj Shipping P. Ltd. and this draft was made on the deposit of cash amount in the bank. The draft was of Rs. 23,978.95 p. and the same was exhibited PW13/B. He made the draft and his handwriting was on Ex. PW13/B and same was signed by D.S. Narang Officer of the Branch and Sh. Raj Kumar Shiwaramani Sub Manager who were authorized signatory.
20 PW14 Vimal Kumar Bothra deposed that he used to work with M/s Vardhaman Electronic at shop no. 394 old Lajpat Rai Mkt. And in fact he used to learn the job there and was not paid and further he deposed he also used to visit M/s Bothra Rugs at Cannaught place. He deposed that Sh. H.M. Bothra was related to him being the son of his elder brother. On seeing the Ex. PW3/M he CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 10 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 deposed that same bears his signatures at point A and he gave a witness as he was related to H.M. Bothra. Further he identified the signature of accused H.M Bothra on Ex. PW3/M. 21 PW15 B. Sabhapati deposed that he was posted as officer in Loan and Advance section of Andhra Bank. He further deposed that Ex. PW13/A, application form and Ex. PW13/B was issued by the branch.
22 PW16 Vipin Jain deposed that he joined the search party of CBI and he went with them to Naya Bazar Delhi from where some documents were seized and in his presence vide seizure memo (Ex. PW6/A) was prepared and same bears his signatures. He further deposed that in his presence specimen signatures of H.M. Bothra and that of his wife (Ex. PW16/B1 to 8) were taken and each sheet of specimen signatures bears his signatures as witness.
23 PW17 B. Toppom deposed that he was working as UDC at IGI Airport in 1989. He was called to CBI office for enquiries. Then, he deposed that he do not remember as what else was done in the CBI office. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. PP. In cross examination he stated that he had seen 13 sheets (mark X1 to 13) and same bears his signature and they were taken in CBI office.
24 PW18 Parmeshwar Rai Nikumb deposed that he was posted in D.E.C. Department of Bombay custom as appraiser in the year 1989. His duty was to scrutinized the D.E.C. Documents and whatever the export was done by any party same was entered in D.E.C. Book in his section. He further deposed that CBI had interrogated him in this case. The record of export and import was maintained by the office and he only knew about this case that accused persons did not make any export.
25 PW19 Bhawan Nanak Ram Navani deposed that he was working as Deputy Superintendent in custom office in the year 1989. His duty was to CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 11 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 supervise the subordinate staff. He further deposed that in this particular case import register was maintained in his office however, there was no export register. The export register was opened when export was made. He further deposed that in this case no export register was opened as there was no export done.
26 PW20 Budhi Ram Sundrial deposed that he was posted as licensing assistant in E.P section during the year 1985-86. His duty was to process the application and was export obligation. R.K. Dhawan was Dy. C. C. I. & E at that time. Mukesh Bhatnagar was the Assistant in C. C. I. & E. He further deposed that he prepared the show cause notice Ex. PW8/B which bears the signature of R.K. Dhawan Dy. C. C. I. & E. 27 PW21 Sh. L.M. Lakra, deposed that he was posted as Dy. C. C. I. & E in C.L.A., New Delhi, I.P. Estate in the year 1989. He filed the present complaint which bears his signatures on all pages and same were Ex. PW21/A. He filed this complaint as he was authorized u/s 6 of Import and Export Act 1947 to file the same. He filed this complaint on the basis of investigation collected by the CBI.
28 PW22 Sh. Bhimsen Bhagwat Singh deposed that he was working as Dock Clerk since 1979 and he was working with C.H.A. M/s Gokul Dass Hansraj Shipping P. Ltd. up to the year 1988. He further deposed that on as dock clerk his duties were to clear the imported material through the docks. The bill of entry 637/79 (duplicate copy) bears the signatures of Sh. Gokul Dass at point A who was the Chairman of the firm. He identifed his signatures as he was well conversant with his signatures. He further deposed that it was a custom copy of bill of entry and he had cleared the goods from the dock and same bears his signatures at point B on the reverse of this copy. He further deposed that the same also bears the signatures of Sh. Ugarsain, his brother whose signatures he identified at point C. His brother was also a dock clerk. The declaration was attached to this bill when the goods were cleared. The copy of this bill of entry is Ex. PW22/A. The receipt memo Ex PW22/B bears his signatures at point A vide which he handed over the CHA file containing pages 1 to 55 to IO. The bill CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 12 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 number 231 dated 24.04.1985 was issued by his firm to M/s Bothra Rugs and same bears the signature of Ms. Edna at point A whose signatures he identify. The copy of this bill is Ex. PW22/C1. The challan no. 362 and 363 dated 20.04.1985 bears his signatures at point A. By these challans the goods were handed over to transporter K.C. Carrier vide endorsement at point B. The copies of these challans were Ex. PW22/C2 -C3. The copy of transporter G.R. Number 17383 and 17384 were marked 22A and B vide which goods were transported to M/s Bothra Rugs New Delhi. The O.T. Form bears his signatures at point A and same was Ex. PW22/C4. The copy of bill of entry maintained in their record bears the signatures of Gokul Dass at point A and same was Ex. PW22/C5. The B.P.D. Copy of bill of entry bears the signatures of Gokul Dass at point A whose signatures he identify and same was Ex. PW22/C6 and same bears his endorsement at point B. The said delivery order pertaining to this B.E. is marked as mark 22/C. The original bill of his firm is Ex. PW22/D which bears the signatures of Ms Edna at point A. The copy of BPD charge bears his signatures at point A and same was exhibied Ex. PW22/E. The copy of bill of entry which was given to the party for furnishing the same in the bank was Ex. PW22/F and same bears the signatures of Gokul Dass at point A. 29 PW23 Satish Naik deposed that he left the Canara Bank in the year 1991 and he remained in international division in Mumbai. He further deposed that he could tell the exact time period and could not say whether Ex. PW2/6 was presented in Canara Bank however, the Ex. PW2/6 bears his signature on reverse at point x. He further deposed that as per this license some other documents might have been presented in the bank which he did not remember. He deposed that he could not say for what purposes documents had come to the bank and further deposed that he had gone through the document shown to him. He further deposed that document D-27, D-28 and D-29 bears the rubber stamp impression of overseas Branch, Canara Bank but he could not say whether these impression were of his bank as it did not bear the signature of any bank official. However, the number FISC 20/85 on the document D-28 and D-29 was tallying with FISC no. on the copy of the license Ex. PW2/6. All these 3 documents were mark PW 23/A to CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 13 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 C. The document D-30, D-31, D-32 also bears the same rubber impression. They were marked as mark 23/D to F respectively. At this stage ld APP cross examine this witness. In his cross examination the witness deposed that he was not introgated by any CBI official. However, one CBI official visited the bank. He talked to the said official long back and he did not remember the content of the meeting. He further deposed that he did not remember whether he had stated in his statement to CBI official that the exchange control copy of import licence no. P/K/3042828 of M/s Bothra Rugs Pvt. Ltd. was presented in the bank at the time of retirement of the documents by the customer due to lapse of time. He further deposed that there was an endorsement on the reverse of Ex. PW2/6 at portion A and same pertained to the fact the documents were presented in the bank for retirement.
30 PW24 Inderjeet Maggu, UDC Registrar Office deposed that he had brought the original record of registration of 11566 of M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. and this was issued by Suraj Kapoor Registrar of companies and photocopies of the same was exhibited as Ex PW24/A. He further deposed that as per form no. 18 the registered office of the company was situated at S-55, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi at the time of incorporation. Sh. H.M. Bothra and Smt. Leela Bothra, are/were Director of the company at the time of incorporation. Sh. Sohan Kumar Bothra was appointed as Director of the company w.e.f. 16.01.1981. Sh. Sohan Kumar had resigned from Directorship of the company on 29.11.1985 as per form no. 32 dated 29.11.1985 and the same were exhibited as EX. PW24/B to EX. PW24/D respectively.
31 PW25 Sh. Mohinder Singh Asst. GEQD Shimla deposed that the documents of this case was received vide letters dated 31.07.1989, 07.08.1989 and 06.10.1989 the details of the documents received with letter under reference were as follows:
document stamped and marked as Q1 on Ex. PW3/B, Q2 to Q4 on Ex. PW2/3, Q5 and Q30 on Ex. PW3/D, Q6 on Ex. PW3/E, Q7 on Ex PW3/F, Q8 on Ex PW3/A, Q9 on Ex PW3/H, Q10 on Ex PW3/J, Q11 on Ex PW3/K, Q12 to CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 14 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 Q16 and Q37 to Q41 on Ex PW3/L, Q17 to Q 25 and Q42 to Q49 on Ex PW3/M, Q25 and Q31 on Ex PW3/N, Q50 and Q51 on Ex PW22/A, Q28, Q29, Q34 and Q35 are mark A, Q27 on mark B, For the purpose of comparison specimen writings and signatures puprorted of H.M. Bothra were supplied as S1 to S4o n Ex PW16/B1 to Ex. PW16/B4, S5 to S17 on Mark X1 to X 13 and S51 to S65 on mark 25 A to E. Further he was also supplied as A1 and A2 on Ex. PW5/A, A4 on Ex. PW5/A2, A3 on mark 25/F, A8 on mark 25/G, A9 on mark 25/H, A10 on mark 25/I, A11 on mark 25/J, A12 mark 25/K, A13 on mark 25/L, A14 on mark 25/M, A7 on PW5/C. For the purpose of comparison specimen writings and signatures puprorted of Leela Bothra were supplied as S40 to S50 on PW6/1 to Ex. PW6/11, S35 to S39 on Ex. PW16/B5 to Ex PW16/B9, her admitted signatures on Ex. PW5/A3.
After careful and thorough examination, he opined that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writing and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S17, S51 to S65 A1 to A5 and A7 to A14 also wrote and red enclosed writing and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q25 (except Q10), Q31, Q50 and Q51. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S35 to S50 and A21 also wrote and red enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Q37 to Q49. His report Ex. PW25/A bears his signatures as well as signatures of B. Lal the then GEQD at point A and B respectively. He identifed the signatures of B. Lal. The reasons for this opinion was EX. PW25/B and bears his signatures at point A.
32 PW26 Panduran Babu Rao Morey deposed that on 21.06.1989 he was posted as Inspector CBI at SIU-IX CGO Complex New Delhi. He furthe deposed that investigation of this case was assigned to him and he conducted the investigation. He identified the accused persons present in the court on that day. He obtained the specimen signatures of all the accused persons. Ex. PW6/1 to Ex. PW6/7 were the specimen signatures of Leela Bothra and specimen handwriting of Leela Bothra were Ex. PW6/8 to Ex. PW6/11. On being shown RC 11 (S)/88 SIU IX dated 29.12.1988, he identified the signatures of Sh. V.K. CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 15 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 Sharma, then S.P. of the branch at point A 1 to A2 Ex. PW26/A. During investigation he obtained the opinion of handwriting expert which was exhibited as Ex. PW25/A. He obtained the specimen signatures as well as handwriting of Sh. H.M. Bothra, vide Ex. PW16/D1 Mark X1, Mark 25/A . He also obtained the specimen signatures and handwriting of S.K. Bothra vide Ex. PW26/C1 to EX. PW26/C19. He also obtained the specimen handwriting and signatures of Leela Bothra which was Ex. PW16/B6 to Ex. PW16/B9. These signatures and handwriting were obtained in the presence of independent witnesses respectively. After completing the investigation, the complaint case was filed in the Hon'ble Court. He further deposed that he conducted the search at residence of accused on 10.02.1989, search memo (Ex. PW16/A) was prepared and said memo his signatures at point A and documents mentioned therein were taken into possession by him.
Arguments advanced and case law relied upon :
33 I have gone through the evidence led by the prosecution to prove its case as well as heard the arguments addressed by both the sides written. Written arguments is filed by defence also considered.
34 It is argued on behalf of prosecution that prosecution is able to successfully proved that accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof, an advance license bearing No P/K/3042828 Ex PW2/6 was got issued subject to the condition mentioned in condition sheet Ex. PW2/5.
Against the said license, duty entitlement exemption certificate book (DEEC) for import as well as export were also issued and both were exhibited as Ex. PW2/7 and Ex. PW2/8 respectively. It is submitted that a legal undertaking (Ex PW3/M) was also submitted by the accused persons to the office of Joint Chief Controller of Import and Exports wherein accused persons undertook to export brass handicrafts of at least for a sum of Rs. 6,20,400/-. It is further argued that in furtherance of conspiracy accused persons imported the brass scrapes and availed the exemption in custom duties of Rs. 3,80,400/- on imported material. The accused persons failed to submit the quarterly report to the licensing authority CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 16 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 and further no export was made against the export obligation as mentioned in the license. It is further argued that PW4 Lalita Prasad Jain clearly proved the misutilization of the imported material by the accused persons in violation of the condition mentioned in the license. Thus the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
35 On the contrary it is argued on behalf of accused persons that no authorization for lodging the present complaint has been produced by the prosecution. It is further argued that there is no overt act on part of any Director which show that these directors violated the terms of the license. It is further argued that DEEC diaries relied by the prosecution were not seized from co- accused and prosecution failed to link these diaries with the accused persons. It is further argued that no independent witness has been testified against the accused. PW4 Lalita Prasad Jain was cited as a witness though infact he should be arrayed as an accused. Moreover statement of PW4 recorded u/s 161 and section 164 Cr.P.C. are identical and no opportunity to cross examine him after framing of charge was provided to accused and for that reason his testimony must be excluded as per section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further argued that PW2 was having no personal knowledge about the issuance of DEEC books to accused or PW7 was also having no personal knowledge about the non performance of export obligation by the accused. It was further argued that PW8 was in no position to say on what basis the show cause notice was issued. It is further argued that statement of PW20 and PW8 contradicts each other or prosecution unable to prove the charge of conspiracy and no evidence regarding the same is on record. It is further argued that complaint is barred by the limitation and on these grounds accused persons be acquitted.
BRIEF REASONS FOR MY DECISION 36 All the accused persons including the company were charged for offence u/s 120-B IPC r/w 5 of Act and substantive offence thereafter. First of all, I deal with the objections raised by Ld. Defence counsel. The first objection is that present case is not maintainable for lack of authorization to lodge a proper complaint. I have gone through the complaint Ex PW21/A, of Sh. L.M. Lakra who CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 17 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 has deposed in the witness box that he is authorized to file the complaint in view section 6 of the Act. This witness is duly cross examined. In view of testimony of this witness, I am of the view that he was competent and authorise to file complaint. Moreover to substantiate my view I refer the case titled as Electronic Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. D.D. Bhargava 1968 AIR 247 wherein it was held that the principles applicable to cases requiring sanction have no application to filing of complaints under s. 6 of the Act. Section 6 only insists that the complaint is to be in writing and that it must be made by an officer authorized in that behalf. The limitation contained in S. 6 is only regarding the particular officer who could file a complaint and, when once he satisfies those requirements, the bar is removed to the taking of cognizance by a court, on a complaint made in accordance with s. 6 (1398F-G). In the present case the complaint had been made by the authorized officer in writing. The requirements of s.6 were therefore satisfied and the Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the offence.
37 Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above judgment, I hold that complainant was authorized person to file the complaint. Another objection raised by Ld. Defence counsel is that testimony of PW4 Lalita Prasad Jain cannot be read into evidence as this witness has died and in post charge evidence did not appear before the court. He has also raised certain objections regarding testimony of this witness stating that PW4 Lalita Prasad Jain is the perpetrator of the crime and he is the person to acknowledge the supply, paid for the imports cleared, imported goods from the customs and arrange for the transport of goods from Bombay to Delhi and also sold the imported goods. It is further stated that not a single witness has testified that the goods were imported, cleared, transported or sold by the accused no. 2,3 and 4. First of all, I will decide whether testimony of PW4 Lalita Prasad Jain can be read in evidence or not. Admittedly this witness has expired and this fact has come on record. As observed above the trial of this case conducted as per procedure given in chapter-XIX of Cr.P.C. i.e. cases instituted otherwise than on police report. At the stage of pre-charge evidence, the examination in chief of this witness was recorded in the presence of accused CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 18 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 persons and the witness was cross examined at length by the accused persons. In the post charge stage, the witness could not be produce as he expired. The testimony of this witness is hit by section 33 of Indian Evidence Act. Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act is reproduced as under reference:
"Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated- Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by way of adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court consider unreasonable:
Provided-
that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representative in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross examine;
that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding".
38 In the present case, the proceedings are between the same parties and the accused has cross examined the deceased witness at length during pre- charge evidence. Therefore, testimony of this witness is squarely covered by section 33 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, this court hold that evidence of PW4 Lalita Prasad Jain shall be read in evidence as witness is dead. The objection of defence that in view of section 138 of Indian Evidence Act, the testimony of PW4 Lalita Prasad cannot be read is not maintainable. It was also argued on behalf of the accused that from the testimony of PW4 Lalita Prasad Jain, it was evident that he should be arrayed as an accused and for that reason, his statement could not be relied upon. In this context, I find it to be useful to refer the judgment titled as Laxmipat Choraria and Ors. v. State of Maharastra, 1968, CRLJ (SC), 1124 wherein it was held "Under section 118 of the Evidence Act, all persons are competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them for reasons indicated in that section. Under s. 132 a witness is not excused from answering any relevant question upon the ground that the answer will incriminate him or CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 19 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 expose him to a penalty of forfeiture of any kind and when compelled to answer such question is protected against arrest or prosecution by the safeguard in the proviso to s. 132 as well as in Art. 20 (3). The evidence of E could not therefore be rules out as that of an incompetent witness. Since E was a self confessed criminal, in conspiracy with others who were being tried, her evidence was accomplice evidence. S. 133 of the Evidence Act makes the accomplice a competent witness against an accused person. For this reason also E's testimony was that of a competent witness". In the same judgment, it was further held "The competency of an accomplice is not destroyed because he could have been tried jointly with the accused but was not and was instead made to give evidence in the case. Section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act and s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not stand in the way of such a procedure".
39 Thus in view of this judgment, I hold that PW4 Lalita Prasad Jain is a competent witness and his testimony is reliable one. The objection raised on behalf of accused accordingly is not maintainable.
40 So far as the other objection i.e. issuance of DEEC book to the accused and no personal knowledge of non performance obligation by the accused is concerned, DEEC book were issued at the time of issuing of the license to the company and license was got issued by Hanuman Mal Bothra and Lalita Bothra. They were very well aware that company was under obligation to furnish the details of the export of brass handicraft which they have not preformed. Now they cannot take the plea that accused persons were not aware with the condition contained in the DEEC that company to furnish quarterly statement of the firm for the export of brass items. Moreover, the initial complaint was lodged to the CBI only on the basis of non performance of the export obligation by the accused persons. Even till date accused persons have not discharged their obligations for the export, even no evidence is led by the accused persons to show that they have exported the brass items in terms of the license.
41 Now, I come to the merits of the case. The license no. P/K/3042828 was issued on the application of accused Hanuman Mal Bothra. The application Ex. PW3/B was signed by Hanuman Mal Bothra as Director of the company. Legal agreement Ex. PW3/M was duly signed by Lalita Bothra and Hanuman Mal Bothra. The application Ex. PW3/2 for correction in the advance duty license was CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 20 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 also signed by Hanuman Mal Bothra on behalf of M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. being the Directors and on the basis of fulfilling the formalities, the license was issued for import of the brass scrapes on the condition contained in the license. So far as accused S.K. Bothra is concerned, he is also one of the Directors of the company and opened the account in the name of company. It is also pertinent to mention that application form of current account no 67 which is Ex. PW5/A is duly signed by Hanuman Mal Bothra and S.K. Bothra. The specimen signatures signed by S.K. Bothra, Hanuman Mal Bothra and Leela Bothra and is Ex. PW5/A1 to Ex PW5/A3. The statement of account is also proved as Ex. PW5/B. It is also pertinent to mention that request letter to the Manager Canara Bank was written by S.K. Bothra for retirement of the documents on behalf of company, which is mark A. PW24 Inderjeet Magoo has categorically deposed that in the form 32 issued by ROC all the three accused persons Hanuman Mal Bothra, S.K. Bothra, and Leela Bothra were the directors of the company and were managing the day to day affairs of the company. The resolution passed on 21.09.1984 by the Board of Directors of the company authorizing Sh. Hanuman Mal Bothra, S.K. Bothra and Leela Bothra severally or any of the duly constituted attorneys of the company consistent with power vested in them be and are hereby authorized to operate on all Banking accounts including accounts where borrowing arrangements are made by the company such as overdraft, cash credit or any other accounts of the company with the Canara Bank and the said Bankers be and hereby authorized to honour and comply with all cheques drafts, bills, promissory note acceptance, negotiable instruments, deposited receipts and orders expressed to be drawn, accepted endorsed made or given on behalf of the company at any time by the aforesaid persons and to act on any instructions from them relating to the affairs of transactions of the company. Resolved that the above resolution be communicated to the said Bankers and remain in force until notice in writing cancelling or modifying the same is given to the said bankers by the Chairman or any one of the Directors of the company.
42 As per record of ROC (PW24) accused S.K. Bothra was appointed as director of the company w.e.f. 16.01.1981 and he resigned on 29.11.1985. It is pertinent that accused S.K. Bothra in the relevant period for which he was director CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 21 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 of the company has written to the bank for retirement of the documents on behalf of company. And in the said period i.e. on 25.03.1985 Rs. 2,40,000/- was deposited by cash in the account of M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. and it is also pertinent that vide resolution dated 21.09.1984, accused S.K. Bothra including other director were severally authority to operate the bank account of company. It has also come in evidence of PW4 that he has paid Rs. 2,40,000/- to Ms. Leela Bothra who was duly identified in the court.
43 In view of the above reasons, I have no hesitation that all the three accused persons i.e. Hanuman Mal Bothra, S.K. Bothra and Leela Bothra being Director of the company i.e. M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. were managing the day to day affairs of the company. The arguments of defence that there is no overt act on the part of any director which show that these directors violated the terms of the license is baseless and overruled in view of above reasons.
44 For a charge of criminal conspiracy, prosecution is under a duty to prove whether there was an agreement to commit the offence between accused persons. To establish charge of conspiracy there must be agreement, there need not be proof of direct meeting or combination, nor need the parties be brought into each other's presence. The agreement may be inferred from circumstances raising a presumption of an common concerted plan to carry out unlawful designs. So again it is not necessary that all should have joined in the scheme from the first, those who come in at later stage are equally guilty, provided the agreement be proved. The conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the parties together, but may be shown like any other fact by circumstantial evidence, detached act of different person against including their written correspondence and entries made by them relative to the main design. In conspiracy direct evidence will be seldom forthcoming and it is necessary to look at the circumstances to see whether conspiracy actually existed. It is not necessary to establish by direct evidence that accused persons commit entries into an agreement to conspire. The agreement of conspiracy lies in the consorted offence and once reasonable ground are made out for belief for the instance of conspiracy amongst the accused, the acts of each conspirator in furtherance of its CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 22 of 23 RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 object are evidence against each of others. Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act states that where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of the, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. Therefore, to prove the charge of conspiracy no direct proof is required which is seldom forthcoming only a reasonable ground to believe is sufficient. Moreover, it is well settled principle of law that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and executed in secrecy. In the present case import export license was got issued under the exemption scheme of Government and brass scrapes was imported. But no export was made in terms of condition of said license. Even accused persons have not given any reply of show cause notice for not having made any export. These circumstance in itself prove the intentions of accused persons.
45 In view of my above reasons, I am of the considered view that all the three accused persons criminally conspired to obtained Advance Import license for Rs. 2,40,000/- in the name of M/s Bothra Rugs for importing brass scrap under duty exemption, and mis-utilized/sell the imported material in contravention of the conditions of the License by not fulfilling the export obligation.
46 In view of the above discussion, accused M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd. the company, accused S.K. Bothra and accused Leela Bothra are convicted for offence u/s 120-B IPC, u/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Substantiative offence thereof.
Announced in the open court (Pooran Chand)
on 11.07.2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi
CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 23 of 23
RC No. 11/88 PS : CBI/SIUIX/ND U/s 120B/420 IPC and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
DOD: 11.07.2014 CBI V. M/s Bothra Rugs P. Ltd. ("Convicted") Page 24 of 23