Gujarat High Court
Roop Narayan Meena S/O Harnarayan Meena vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 30 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 911 of 2024
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 924 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
ROOP NARAYAN MEENA S/O HARNARAYAN MEENA
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR D K TRIVEDI(5283) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 30/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellants
- convicts (i.e. the original accused nos.1 and 2) under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.5, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Special (CBI) Case No.18 of 2016.
Page 1 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
2. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the present appellants-accused have been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.50,000=00, and in making default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The trial court, however, acquitted the present appellants-accused from the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution version, in a nut-shell, is as follows :
3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the present appellants-accused (i.e. the original accused nos.1 and
2) were working as Superintendent and Inspector, respectively, in the Customs and Central Excise Department, and the accused no.3 Ankit D.Changani was working as one of the partners in the partnership firm M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar, which is Page 2 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined engaged in the business of importing duty free raw-materials with an obligation to export the entire production made out of such duty free raw-materials. It is the case of the prosecution that the partners of said firm tried to export one consignment by declaring it as brass electrical parts valued at Rs.1.08 crore and they had also filed a shipping bill bearing no.3814591 dated 29.10.2015 with the Mundra SEZ Port, Mundra. The said consignment, which was stuffed in a container bearing no. BLJU2350372, was to be exported to M/s. Secure Link, LC, Dubai (UAE). It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.10.2015, the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena (Superintendent) and the accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra (Inspector) had supervised and examined all the stuffing of the container by way of an examination report under their seal & signatures and had also sealed the container so that it may not further be checked and examined at the port by the Customs Department. It is alleged that on the basis of the specific information, the Director of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad, called back the said container from the high sea and it was landed at the Mundra Port on 15.11.2015 with the same seal intact, and on opening and examining the said container under due process by the DRI, it was found that the entire container Page 3 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined was stuffed with 724 cartons packed with cement bricks instead of brass electrical parts, as declared by the exporter. It is further alleged that the total duty availed on the raw materials as per the ARE-I by M/s.Amardeep Exports against the alleged export was Rs.23,30,270=00.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant- accused nos.1 and 2, being public servants, hatched a criminal conspiracy with M/s.Amardeep Exports, and in furtherance thereto, they dishonestly and fraudulently entered wrong verification under their seal & signatures in the examination report and showed undue favour to M/s.Amardeep Exports, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and the Public Exchequer to the tune of Rs.23,30,270=00 and corresponding wrongful gain to M/s. Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar.
5. An FIR in this regard came to be lodged on 21.01.2016, and after the registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation, and during the investigation, the statements of the relevant witnesses conversant with the alleged offence were recorded, necessary panchnamas were drawn, several documentary evidence were collected, and after having Page 4 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined found adequate evidence against the present appellants- convicts, they were arrested and a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellants-accused, which was registered on 29.06.2016.
6. The Charge was framed on 31.03.2017 vide Exh.11 against the appellants-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereupon the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined 24 witnesses and adduced 96 documentary evidence in support of their case, which are as follow :
WITNESSES WITNESS NAME EXH.
1. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Chief Commissioner, 26 Central Excise, GST & Customs, Bhuvaneshwar Zone
2. Chhaganbhai Ravjibhai Tarpara, Panch Witness 45
3. Girishbhai Pranjivanbhai Parmar, Sr.Intelligence 49 Officer, DRI, Jamnagar Page 5 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 4. Dipesh Anantrai Rajgor, Branch Manager, 65 Trishul Transport Company
5. Dharmarao Kilayaa Budda, Branch Manager, M/ 73 s.Velji Dosabhai & Sons Pvt. Ltd.
6. Hareshbhai Pachanbhai Maheshwari, Asst. 80 Manager, Saurashtra Infra & Power Pvt. Ltd., Mundra 7. Rakesh Ishwar Ganveer, Panch Witness 91
8. Surendrasinh Natvarsinh Gohil, Superintendent 95 of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax 9. Munesh Singh S/o Rajender Singh, 126 Sr.Intelligence Officer
10. Shankarbhai Jashabhai Bokha, Sr.Intelligence 154 Officer, Jamnagar 11. Mohanlal Dhukalram 165
12. N.V.V.R.S. Murthy, Clerk, Kandla Specific 172 Economic Zone
13. S.Ramesh Shrinivas Raghvan, Superintendent, 180 CGST, Vadodara
14. Hiteshbhai Jayantilal Mehta, Assistant, 196 Development Commissioner Office, Kandla Specific Economic Zone
15. Rajendraprasad Harshai Meena, Chemical 225 Examiner at Customs House Laboratory
16. Dashrathan Rajaraman, Joint Director at 234 Customs House Laboratory
17. Dipeshbhai Kishorechandra Chudasma, Regional 253 Process Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jamnagar Branch, Jamnagar
18. Vishalbhai Chhaganlal Ghamsani, Operation 263 Head in Axis Bank
19. Mrudul Upendrabhai Bhatt, Alternate Nodal 298 Officer in Vodafone Idea
20. Babulal Ugajibhai Rathod, Dy.Manager, SBI, 313 Jamnagar
21. Nimbaram Sonaram Devasi, Dy.Director, DRI 315 Page 6 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
22. Zakirhussain Noormohmmad, Additional 325 Director, GST, Intelligence, Ahmedabad
23. Anilkumar Dabas, Deputy Superintendent of 333 Police, CBI
24. Ashish Shashikant Joshi, Panch Witness 339
8. The documentary evidence consisted of the statements, sanction orders, receipts memo, bills of entries, circulars, returns, panchnamas, production-cum-receipt memos, challans, correspondences, invoices, gate-pass, checklist, declaration, shipping bills, survey report, test memos, reports, tally sheet, letter of permission, license, notifications, public notices, partnership deed, search list, seizure memo, etc.
9. After completion of the evidence, the further statements of the appellants-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the appellants-accused had explained the incriminating circumstances that they have no personal knowledge and they don't know anything. During the course of the recording of the statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procdure, the appellants-accused had submitted their further explanation vide Exhibits 397 and 402, respectively.Page 7 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
10. On completion of the trial, the trial court found the appellants-accused guilty of the charges levelled against them under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2024 passed in Special (CBI) Case No.18 of 2016.
11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellants-convicts have preferred the present appeals before this Court. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED.
12. Learned advocate Mr.Devashish K.Trivedi appearing for the appellants-accused has vehemently and fervently contended that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated. No convincing evidence has been led to prove the offence of conspiracy and cheating. It is also contended that the appellants are public servants and they have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(1)(d) Page 8 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is contended that the sanction to prosecute the appellants was obtained by the prosecution only qua the offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, however, no sanction was obtained by the prosecution for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that, when a public servant is to be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code, a separate sanction for the same is necessary.
13. While referring to the Charge at Exh.11, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has submitted that, in all, there were three charges. As per charge no.1, both the appellants herein, in collusion with the original accused no.3 Ankit D.Changani, had hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Government and the Public Exchequer by way of submitting false export related documents, which were endorsed by the present appellants, thereby they had obtained duty benefits on raw-materials as per the ARE-I amounting to Rs.23,30,270=00. So far as charge no.2 is concerned, it is submitted that the same has been levelled only against the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, which was with regard Page 9 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined to deficit of the available stock of brass scrap. As per charge no.3, all the three accused persons had committed offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery by way of submitting false export documents as genuine and had also committed criminal misconduct, punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
14. It is submitted that after the completion of the trial, both the appellants herein were acquitted from the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, however, they have been convicted only for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
15. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi, while referring to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-23) Anilkumar Dabas, has submitted that the Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has specifically elicited that there is no evidence in the charge-sheet to show that the accused nos.1 and 2 had demanded bribe from Page 10 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined anyone. He has further elicited that there is no evidence in the charge-sheet that the accused nos.1 and 2 (i.e. the appellants herein) had obtained undue favour or advantage from anyone. It is also elicited from the evidence of the Investigating Officer that during the investigation, he did not find any antecedent against the present appellants-accused. While referring to the statements of the appellants-accused recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has submitted that the trial court, while convicting the appellants-accused for the alleged offences, has heavily relied upon the aforesaid statements recorded by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
16. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi, while referring to the three statements (i) dated 26.11.2015, (ii) dated 22.02.2016 and (iii) 09.03.2016 of the accused no.3 Ankit D.Changani, has submitted that the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, in his statement recorded by the DRI on 26.11.2015, has admitted that due to financial crunch and with a view to recover the loss in the business, he had exported cement bricks instead of brass electrical parts, as declared. Further, in his statement recorded by the DRI on 22.02.2016, the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had Page 11 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined stated that he had never paid any amount to the appellants herein with regard to the container in question or for any other purpose. Similarly, in his statement dated 09.03.2016, he has admitted that he had clandestinely removed the goods without any documentation or without paying the duty and received cash amount for the transaction. He has also stated that the Central Excise Officers were completely unaware about all these illegal removal of the goods. He has also clarified in his statement that none of the officers was personally present at the premises of M/s.Amardeep Exports during the stuffing of the container in question.
17. Referring to the aforesaid admissions on behalf of the accused no.3, it is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Trivedi that it clearly appears from the aforesaid evidence that the appellants were not aware about the fact that instead of the declared goods, the exporter was trying to illegally export the cement bricks. It is submitted that this evidence clearly suggests the motive for accused no.3, while suggesting lack of any motive on the part of the present appellants who were not even aware about such illegal export and even about the clandestinely removal of the goods. It is submitted that it becomes clear from the aforesaid Page 12 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined evidence that both the appellants herein had no motive, mens rea, malafide intention and had even no knowledge that the accused no.3 had illegally stuffed the cement bricks instead of the brass electrical parts, as declared, in the container.
18. It is submitted that from the conjoin reading of the testimonies of the Investigating Officers (PW-23) Anilkumar Dabas, (PW-21) Nimbaram Sonaram Devasi, Deputy Director, DRI, and the statement of the accused no.3 Ankit D.Changani, it becomes clear that the appellants herein had neither obtained any wrongful gain nor had they any intention or motive or knowledge to cause wrongful loss to the Government and the Public Exchequer. Further, the appellants even had no knowledge about the illegal act on the part of the accused no.3 of cheating the Government and the Public Exchequer by stuffing the goods other than the declared one, in the export container.
19. While pointing out the provisions of Sections 112A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has submitted that the said provisions provide for the penalties to even a person who abets in the commission of crime, whereas the provisions of Sections 135 and 136 of the Act provide for the Page 13 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined offences by officers of the Customs and the punishment for the same.
20. While referring to the evidence of the Investigating Officers (PW-21) Nimbaram Sonaram Devasi, Deputy Director, DRI and (PW-9) Munesh Rajender Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has submitted that both these witnesses, in their respective evidence, have admitted that no show-cause notices were issued for the penalties nor any criminal complaint was filed against the present appellants by the Department of Customs and Central Excise by invoking the aforesaid provisions. This makes it clear that even the DRI has not found the appellants guilty of any offence and, therefore, it had not initiated any action as provided in the Customs Act.
21. So far as the charge of participation in criminal conspiracy with the accused no.3 Ankit Changani is concerned, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had sent a request letter dated 27.10.2015 to the present appellants for the export of a container of brass electrical parts on 28.10.2015. The container bearing no.BLJU2350372 was stuffed on 28.10.2015 Page 14 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined with cement bricks packed in 724 cartons instead of the brass electrical parts, as declared by the exporter, by submitting false export documents (ARE-I). It is further alleged by the prosecution that the present appellants had participated in the criminal conspiracy with the accused no.3 Ankit Changani and had signed the factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods report (Exh.106) without even visiting the premises of the accused no.3, where the container was stuffed. It is also alleged that they had also provided the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal bearing no.023163 of the Customs and Central Excise Department, Rajkot, without even physically examining the goods, which is mandatory as per the rules and regulations of the department. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has submitted in this regard that at the time of alleged stuffing of the container, both the appellants, who were working as Superintendent and Inspector, respectively, were heavily burdened with administrative work and since M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar, was the regular exporter, they did not visit the factory premises of the accused no.3 at the time of stuffing of the container, and instead, they had signed the examination and sealing report in good faith, therefore, they had no opportunity to witness the stuffing process. Since they had signed the Page 15 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined examination and sealing report in good faith as an administrative function, it would be improper to allege that both the appellants had hatched a criminal conspiracy along with the accused no.3 Ankit Changani and had deliberately certified the false examination report as well as other alleged export documents.
22. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi, while drawing attention of this Court to the Circulars No.F.224/37/2005-CX-6 dated 24.12.2008 and No.952/13/2011-CX dated 08.09.2011 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, has submitted that even otherwise, as per the said circulars, the appellants were not required to physically remain present and participate in the container stuffing process in each and every case.
23. While pointing out to the Circular No.F.224/37/2005-CX6 dated 24.12.2008, wherein the function and responsibility of the Range Officer (Superintendent) and Sector Officer (Inspector) has been specified, it is submitted that, as provided in the Circular, while examining and sealing the export consignment, a uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Page 16 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Central Excise Department was required. It is submitted that there was confusion amongst both the appellants. The appellant- accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena (Superintendent), was under
an impression that the appellant-accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra (Inspector), might have gone to the factory premises of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani to carry out the physical examination and sealing of the container, whereas, the appellant-accused Rahul Chhabra was under an impression that the appellant-accused Roop Narayan Meena might have gone to the factory premises of the accused no.3 to carry out the physical examination and sealing of the container. In support of his argument, Mr.Trivedi has referred to the CDR details (Exhibits 299 and 300) and has submitted that it reflects from the said CDR that on 28.10.2015 between 02:01 and 05:01, the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena (Superintendent) was not available in the office. It is further submitted that considering the aforesaid, at the most, it can be deduced from the case of the prosecution that the appellants were negligent in examining and verifying the export goods at the time of stuffing the container and in preparing Annexure-C1 examination report, for which the departmental proceedings have already been initiated against both the appellants and the same are still pending, and in the Page 17 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined mean time, both of them have been placed under suspension.
However, under no stretch of imagination, it can be deduced that the appellants had done the alleged acts with criminal intent and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants had participated in the so-called conspiracy to cheat the Government and the Public Exchequer by abusing their position and had given undue advantage to the accused no.3 Ankit Changani. In this regard, it is further submitted that although the trial court has admitted in evidence and has also exhibited the statement of the accused no.3 recorded by the DRI, yet it has erroneously not considered the fact that the main accused Ankit Changani, in his statement, has specifically admitted that the appellants had not visited the premises during the stuffing of the goods other than the declared goods in the container, and the only reason for doing so, as stated by the accused no.3, is that he was facing financial crunch and wanted to recover the loss made by him in the business. He, even, has specifically stated in his statement that he had not paid any illegal gratification to any of the officers.
24. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has further submitted that the prosecution has not led any direct or indirect evidence which Page 18 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined can connect the appellants with the alleged offence of conspiracy. It is submitted in this regard that the prosecution has only alleged that there was telephonic conversation between the appellants and the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, however, except the CDR, no evidence has been produced in this regard. Neither any call transcript nor any other direct evidence has been produced by the prosecution. It is submitted that the trial court has not considered the evidence regarding the CDR in its proper perspective. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to establish the aspect of meeting of minds of the appellants and other co-accused for the commission of the offence as alleged. It is further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the container was seized by the DRI and the DRI had carried out the entire investigation regarding the same and thereafter the case was handled by the CBI, who has not carried out any independent investigation. It is submitted that the DRI officials are not authorized to draw any panchnama and, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on such evidence.
25. Lastly, it is submitted that considering the evidence on record in its entirety, it clearly appears that the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Page 19 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Penal Code are not attracted and the same are not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. In this regard, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has implored the court to allow the appeal, set-aside the impugned judgment and direct the acquittal of the appellants from the charges levelled against them. In support of his contentions, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has relied upon the following case-laws :
I. With reference to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Mr.Trivedi has relied upon the following judgments :
Anil Kumar Bose vs. State of Bihar (1974) 4 SCC 616 And Raghunath Prasad vs. State of Bihar Bishan Das vs. State of Punjab and (2014) 15 SCC 242 Another SVL Murthy vs. State Represented by CBI, (2009) 6 SCC 77 Hyderabad N. Raghavender vs. State of Andhra (2021) 18 SCC 70 Pradesh, CBI Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & Others (2009) 7 SCC 712 vs. State of Punjab & Others Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others (S) vs. State (2022) 7 SCC 124 of West Bengal and Others (S) Page 20 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined II. With reference to Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Mr.Trivedi has relied upon the following judgments :
K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala (2005) 12 SCC 631 Ramesh Bhai & Another vs. State of (2009) 12 SCC 603 Rajasthan C. Chenga Reddy & Others vs. State of (1996) 10 SCC 193 A.P. Ram Sharan Chaturvedi vs. State of (2022) 16 SCC 166 Madhya Pradesh Praveen @ Sonu vs. State of Haryana 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184 Maghavendra Pratap Singh alias Pankaj 2023 SCC OnLine SC Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh 486 Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. (2005) 5 SCC 294 State of Maharashtra & Another Tarseem Kumar vs. Delhi Administration 1994 Supp (3) SCC 367 Nandu Singh vs. State of Madhya 2022 SCC OnLine SC Pradesh (Now Chhatisgarh) 1454 Saju vs. State of Kerala 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1588 Rameshchandra Bhogilal Patel vs. State 2010 SCC OnLine of Gujarat & Anr. Guj 13837 III. With reference to 'good faith', Mr.Trivedi has relied upon the following judgments :
State of Gujarat vs. Paresh Nathalal 2024 SCC OnLine SC Chauhan 568 General Officer Commanding Rashtriya 2012 SCC OnLine SC Rifles vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 390 Page 21 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1-CBI :
26. Vehemently opposing the present appeal and the submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr.Trivedi for the appellants-convicts, learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.R.C.Kodekar appearing for the respondent no.1 - Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court do not call for any interference by this Court since the trial court, after appreciating the evidence; both, ocular as well as documentary, has convicted the present appellants for the charges levelled against them. Mr.Kodekar has submitted that the prosecution has proved all the essential elements of the alleged offence, through cogent and convincing evidence.
27. While referring to the charge at Exh.11, learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar has submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the main accused (i.e. the original accused no.3 - Ankit Changani), in collusion with the present appellants (i.e. the original accused nos.1 and 2 - Roop Narayan Meena and Rahul Chhabra, respectively), had hatched a criminal Page 22 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined conspiracy to cheat the Government and the Public Exchequer by way of submitting false export related documents, which were intentionally endorsed by the present appellants, thereby obtaining duty benefits on raw-materials as per the ARE-I amounting to Rs.23,30,270=00.
28. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar has submitted that M/s.Amardeep Exports is a partnership firm, i.e. a hundred percentage Export Oriented Unit (EOU), engaged in the business of importing duty-free raw-materials of brass scrap with an obligation to export hundred percentage of the product made out of such duty-free raw-materials, therefore, it is called a hundred percentage EOU. The firm was working through its partner Ankit Changani (i.e. the original accused no.3).
29. It is submitted that the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani had sent a request letter to the appellants-accused on 27.10.2015 for export of one consignment by declaring the goods as brass electrical parts valued at Rs.1.08 crores. The said consignment was to be exported to M/s.Secure Link, LC, Dubai (UAE), through the container bearing no.BLJU2350372, which was stuffed on 28.10.2015 with 724 cartons. Both the present Page 23 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined appellants had endorsed all the false documents submitted by the accused no.3 Ankit Changani and prepared a false examination report to show that they had supervised and examined the stuffing of the container as per the examination report Exh.106 under their seal & signatures and had also certified that the container is stuffed in their presence and it contained brass electrical parts. It is also certified that they had sealed the container with a uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department after the stuffing so that it may not further be examined and checked by the Customs Officer on duty at the port. It is submitted that on 29.10.2015, the firm had also filed a shipping bill bearing no.3814591 (Exh.111) before the Customs Department with a description that brass electrical parts are stuffed in the container.
30. It is submitted that on 15.11.2015, on the basis of the secret input, the DRI officials called back the said container from the high-sea, which was landed at Mundra Port, with the same seal intact. By following due process, the container was opened and examined by the DRI, and on examination, it was found that the entire container was stuffed with cement bricks packed in Page 24 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 724 cartons instead of brass electrical parts, as declared by the exporter, and as per Annexure-C1 examination report prepared by the present appellants, which caused a wrongful loss to the Government and the Public Exchequer to the tune of Rs.23,30,270=00 and corresponding wrongful gain to M/s.Amardeep Exports.
31. Further, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar that on 29.02.2016, at the time of conducting physical verification of the factory premises of the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani, a deficit of 38.539 MTs of imported brass raw-materials was found, and during the investigation, it was revealed that the accused no.3 had diverted the same into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), which is strictly barred by the rules, which caused loss of duty to the Government and the Public Exchequer to the tune of Rs.70,25,618=00. It is submitted that M/s.Amardeep Exports had filed a shipping bill (Exh.111) with a description that brass electrical parts are stuffed in the container. However, after calling it back from the high-sea, the DRI opened the container after following due process, and upon examination, it was found that instead of brass electrical parts, as declared in the shipping bill, the Page 25 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined container was stuffed with cement bricks. Since it was a deliberate false declaration by the accused no.3, the DRI seized the said goods as per Section 10 of the Customs Act.
32. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved these facts through the deposition of (PW-8) Surendrasinh Natwarsinh Gohil, Superintendent of Customs, who was discharging his duty at the time of the incident as Senior Intelligence Officer in the office of the DRI, Gandhidham. He, in his evidence, has categorically stated that upon receiving the secret input, they had called back the container from the high-sea, which was in transit to Dubai, and accordingly, instructed the shipping line. The container was landed at the Mundra Port, and on the same day, it was opened by following due process, and upon examination, 724 cartons were found stuffed with cement bricks instead of brass electrical parts and, therefore, he had issued summons to the proprietor of M/s.Amardeep Exports. It is submitted that during the cross-examination of the witness, the said fact has not been rebutted. Thus, the prosecution has convincingly established the case.
33. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar, while Page 26 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined referring to the evidence of the PW-9 Munesh Rajender Singh, who was discharging his duties as Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, has submitted that this witness, in his evidence, has stated that during the investigation, it was found that M/s.Amardeep Exports, under the guise of brass electrical parts, had, in fact, exported cement bricks. He has stated that in the ARE-I return filed by M/s.Amardeep Exports, a stock of 130-140 MTs of brass scrap was declared as the closing balance. However, during the verification, a deficit of 61.237 MTs of brass scrap was found in the stock. He has also deposed that the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, in his statement dated 09.03.2016 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the DRI, has admitted that both the present appellants had not examined and verified the export goods at the time of stuffing the container and even the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department was brought by Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, from the office of the present appellants.
34. It is submitted that this fact is in corroboration with the statement of the appellant-accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra recorded by the DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act, Page 27 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined wherein, he has admitted that at the time of stuffing the container, he was busy with some other office work, and one Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, had submitted the documents in respect of the export consignment, and on instructions of the appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena, he had signed and endorsed all the export documents in good faith since the said firm was the regular exporter. The appellant-accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra has also admitted in the statement that the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department was handed over by him to Shri Hitesh Sharma.
35. Mr.Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that during the cross-examination of this witness, nothing fruitful was surfaced, which would falsify or rebut this fact.
36. While referring to the evidence of (PW-22) Shri Zakirhussain Noormohmmad, Additional Director, GST, Intelligence, Ahmedabad, who was examined at Exh.325, it is submitted that it clearly reveals from his evidence that on 29.02.2016 and 01.03.2016, two panchnamas were drawn by Page 28 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Shri Biju Mathew, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, at Plot No.414 of M/s.Amardeep Exports regarding the stock of raw-materials in the godown and the same was found weighing 16,267 kgs. and 44,917 kgs., respectively, instead of 130-140 MTs, as declared by them in the statement. Thus, a deficit of 61.237 MTs of imported brass raw-materials was noticed. It is submitted that during the cross-examination of this witness, the said fact has not been disputed and no question was put in rebuttal.
37. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar, in this regard, has submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the aforesaid evidence while arriving at the conclusion that the appellants were connected with the accused no.3 Ankit Changani in hatching a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Government Exchequer and the Public Exchequer by way of submitting false export related documents which were endorsed by the present appellants, thereby obtaining duty benefits on raw-materials.
38. It is submitted that as per the rules, the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department was supposed to be kept strictly in Page 29 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the custody of the officers of the Central Excise Department and it cannot be moved without the permission and authority of the said officers. In the case on hand, upon instructions of the appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena, the appellant- accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra had handed over this official seal to Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, without even examining the goods in the container, which is suggestive of the expressed consent and involvement of both the present appellants in the commission of the alleged offence.
39. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the CBI has also filed a separate case under the provisions of the Corruption Act against the present appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena and his wife, inter alia, alleging possession of disproportionate property, which was found 85.12% more than his known sources of income. It is submitted that after the investigation, even charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court against the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena and his wife and the same is subjudiced in a Special Court vide Special Case No.07 of 2017.
Page 30 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
40. Mr.Kodekar has also referred to the evidence of (PW-1) Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, GST & Customs, Bhuvaneshwar Zone, who accorded sanction by issuing separate orders for sanction vide Exhibits 27 and 28 respectively.
41. Mr.Kodekar has referred to the evidence of (PW-6) Shri Hareshbhai Pachanbhai Maheshwari, Assistant Manager in M/s.Saurashtra Infra & Power Private Limited, Mundra (renamed as M/s.Saurashtra Freight Private Limited), who, in his evidence, has deposed that the container was sealed with two seals, and the DRI, after destuffing the container, found 724 cartons containing cement bricks.
42. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar, while referring to the evidence of (PW-7) Shri Rakesh Ishwar Ganveer, who is a panch-witness and who was working as an Assistant Manager (Operations) in M/s.Twenty Cubes Logistics, Gandhidham, has submitted that this witness, in his evidence, has clearly stated that he had also verified from all the sides of the container and it was found intact. Thereafter, the container Page 31 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined was opened and destuffed. This witness has also stated that all the cartons were containing cement bricks.
43. Mr.Kodekar has also referred to the evidence of (PW-8) Shri Surendrasinh Natwarsinh Gohil, Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, and has submitted that this witness, in his evidence at Exh.95 has specifically deposed that in the shipping bill filed by M/s.Amardeep Exports, the goods were declared as brass electrical parts, but after calling back the container from the high-sea, when it was opened and destuffed by following due process, the goods were found to be cement bricks, which clearly suggests that the exporter had committed the offence of mis- declaration and fraud, therefore, the goods were seized as per the provisions of Section 10 of the Customs Act.
44. Mr.Kodekar has referred to the evidence of (PW-9) Shri Munesh Singh Rajender Singh, who, in his evidence at Exh.126 has deposed that the DRI has registered a case of fraudulent export against M/s.Amardeep Exports, and during his investigation, he had recorded the statements of all the three accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act. He has specifically stated that the accused no.3, in his statement, has Page 32 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined admitted that he had diverted the imported raw-materials of metal scrap in the local market and, therefore, the quantity was found deficit in the stock. He has also stated that the appellant- accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra has admitted in his statement that at the time of stuffing the container, he was busy with some other office work and has also admitted that he had handed over the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani. He has also deposed that the appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena, in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, has admitted that he had not visited the factory premises of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani at the time of stuffing the container, and without examining or verifying the goods stuffed in the container, he had signed all the export documents in good faith since M/s.Amardeep Exports was the regular exporter.
45. Mr.Kodekar, while referring to the evidence of (PW-18) Shri Vishalbhai Chhaganlal Ghamsani, Operation Head in the Axis Bank, has submitted that this witness, in his evidence, has Page 33 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined stated that the mobile no.9909722707 was registered in the name of the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena and the mobile no.9998812840 was registered in the name of the accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra. He has also identified the KYC documents submitted by both the present appellants-accused.
46. Mr.Kodekar has also referred to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-23) Anilkumar Dabas and has submitted that this witness, in his evidence at Exh.333, has specifically deposed that during the investigation, it was found that both the present appellants-accused were posted at Jamnagar and were discharging their duties as the public servants. However, by taking disadvantage of their position, they had participated in the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused no.3 Ankit Changani.
47. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar, while referring to the evidence of all other witnesses, has submitted that the prosecution, through the evidence of all the witnesses and through the documentary evidence, has proved the involvement of both the present appellants-accused in the Page 34 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined alleged offence. It is, therefore, submitted that since the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence, interference by this Court is not warranted. It is submitted that considering the evidence on record in its entirety, there remains no doubt about the involvement and the mens rea of both the appellants- accused in the alleged offence and, therefore, according to Mr.Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor, no fault can be said to have been committed by the trial court in appreciating the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion.
48. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar, while referring to the judgments in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu, through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT vs. Nalini and others, reported in (1999) 5 SCC 253; State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600; and Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI, Bombay, reported in AIR 2015 (Supp) SC 2309, has submitted that it is made clear by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments that criminal conspiracy is the intention to commit a crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. It is also held that Page 35 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined generally conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Generally, both the existence of the conspiracy and its object have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. It is submitted that in the instant case, the prosecution has established the entire chain of circumstances, which is clearly suggestive of meeting of minds amongst the accused and their involvement in the alleged offence of cheating with a common intention of evasion of duty by causing wrongful loss to the Government and the Public Exchequer and corresponding gain to the accused no.3 Ankit Changani. Learned Special Public Prosecution Mr.Kodekar has also submitted that the CDR at Exhibits 299 and 300 clearly indicates that prior to the commission of the offence, all the accused were closely connected with each other, which clearly establishes meeting of minds. Further, the act of both the appellants-accused herein of endorsing the false export documents and of providing a uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, without even visiting the factory premises at the time of stuffing the export goods in the container is suggestive of not only the meeting of Page 36 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined minds but also their active participation in the alleged offence. Mr.Kodekar has, therefore, submitted that the trial court, after appreciating the entire evidence; both, ocular as well as documentary, has rightly held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, it is urged that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court do not warrant interference by this Court and the appeals may be dismissed. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2-STATE:
49. Vehemently opposing the present appeals and the submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr.D.K.Trivedi for the appellants-convicts, learned APP Ms.Shruti Pathak appearing for the respondent no.2 - State has submitted that the appeals are not required to be entertained since the trial court has, after precisely appreciating the evidence; both, oral as well as documentary, convicted the appellants-accused for the alleged offence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
Page 37 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
50. Before adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apt to refer to the following case-laws, wherein the Supreme Court has set-out the powers of the appellate court :
(i) In Jogi and others vs. State of M.P., reported in (2021) 4 CriCC 524, it has been held by the Supreme Court that while exercising appellate jurisdiction, the High Court is required to evaluate the evidence on record independently and to arrive at its own findings as regards the culpability or otherwise of the accused on the basis of the evidentiary materials.
(ii) In Padam Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2000 SC 361 = (2000) 1 SCC 621, it has been held by the Supreme Court that it is the duty of the appellate court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not, and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from Page 38 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined proved and admitted facts. It must be remembered that the appellate court like the trial court has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final court of appeal and that presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court. The judicial approach in dealing with the case where an accused is charged of murder under Section 302 has to be cautions, circumspect and careful and the High Court, therefore, has to consider the matter carefully and examine all relevant and material circumstances, before upholding conviction.
(iii) In Amar Sardar vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2024 INSC 1040, it has been held by the Supreme Court that while hearing the appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction. There shall be independent application of mind in deciding the criminal appeal against conviction. It is the duty of an appellate Page 39 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined court to independently evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether such evidence is credible. Even if the evidence is deemed reliable, the High Court must further assess whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court though being an appellate Court is akin to a trial court, must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution's case is substantially true and that the guilt of the accused has been conclusively proven while considering an appeal against a conviction.
The necessity of this exercise arises from the fact that a conviction curtails the personal liberty of the accused in the incessant future. Hence, the High Court must provide clear reasons for accepting the evidence on record. Mere concurrence with the findings of the trial court is insufficient unless supported by a well-reasoned independent justification. As the first appellate court, the High Court is expected to evaluate the evidence including the medical evidence, statement of the victim, statements of the witnesses and the defence's version with due care. Page 40 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
51. Bearing in mind the aforesaid settled legal position, the evidence of the present case are required to be appreciated. The evidence led by the prosecution in this regard can be summarised as under :
(1) Shri Chhaganbhai Ravjibhai Tarpara (PW-2), who is a Power of Attorney holder of the proprietor firm M/s.Shiv Wooden Works, in his evidence at Exh.45, has deposed that the firm had provided corrugated boxes to the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, a partner of M/s.Amardeep Exports, as per his order. He has also produced documents regarding the said transaction as well as the bills dated 20.10.2015 and 30.10.2015.
(2) Shri Dipesh Anantrai Rajgor (PW-4), Branch Manager, Ms.Trishul Transport Company, in his evidence at Exh.65, has deposed that his company is engaged in the business of supplying containers to the exporters at their factories, warehouses or godowns. He has deposed that as per the order of the exporter, they procure empty containers and provide it to the exporter, and when it is loaded by the exporter after due process when the Customs Department approves it as ready for export, then the driver carry the container to the port in a transport Page 41 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined vehicle. He has further deposed that on 27.10.2015, his company had supplied container to M/s.Amardeep Exports, in a vehicle bearing no.GJ-12-AU-9111, and after the goods were stuffed, it was brought back at the port on 29.10.2015. He has produced the necessary documents and invoices vide Exh.67.
(3) Shri Dharmarao Kilayaa Budda (PW-5), in his evidence at Exh.73, has deposed that he is working as a Branch Manager in M/s.Velji Dosabhai & Sons Private Limited Company at Mundra.
He has deposed that his company functions as a Customs House Agent (CHA) and the primary responsibility of the company is to prepare export documents and facilitating customs clearance. He has further deposed that M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar, which is engaged in the business of brass electrical parts, is one of their clients. In October 2015, he had received a call from the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani requesting for 20 feet container for export in Dubai. Therefore, he had approached M/s.Shreyas Relay Systems Limited, Mundra (whose freight tariff was accepted by M/s.Amardeep Exports), and for transportation of the container, he had contacted M/s.Trishul Transport Company, who coordinated with M/s.Shreyas Relay Systems Limited for container's delivery. Subsequently, the Page 42 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined container was handed over to M/s.Trishul Transport Company, who transported it to M/s.Amardeep Exports using a trailer. After the goods were stuffed in the container, it was brought back to Mundra Port. The stuffing process was carried out under the supervision of the officers of the Central Excise Department and the central excise seal was duly affixed on the container. He has deposed that after all the documents were duly endorsed, the container was transported from the factory premises to the Mundra Port. This witness has described the standard procedure followed during such export. According to him, when a container is stuffed at the factory premises, the exporter is required to prepare certain documents including the export invoice, Annexure-C1 examination report, ARE-I form and the export declaration. As the Customs House Agent, once they receive a container with accompanying documents, they verify the authentication and clearance by the Central Excise authorities, and upon successful verification, they permit the container to proceed to port. Subsequently, they prepare the shipping bill, which is reviewed and approved by the Customs officer. Once the verification is completed, the goods are deemed to be ready for export and the concerned Customs officer has to allow the export.
Page 43 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined (3.1) This witness has further deposed that in the instant case, they received the consignment for export of brass electrical parts from M/s.Amardeep Exports and all the procedures were followed as per the rules and regulations. He has specifically stated that M/s.Amardeep Exports was operating under a hundred percentage export oriented unit scheme. He has further deposed that in November 2015, he was contacted by (PW-8) Surendrasinh Natvarsinh Gohil, an officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, who informed him that the container belonging to M/s.Amardeep Exports has been recalled. The officer had instructed him that once the container would arrive at the Saurashtra Containers Freight Station (CFS), Mundra, he would be intimated by a telephonic message and then he must come to the site along with two witnesses. In compliance of the above instructions, he, along with two witnesses, namely, Shri Kirit Patanwadiya and Shri Rakesh Ganveer (PW-7), reached at the CFS, verified the number of the container, checked it from all the sides and found the seal to be intact. Thereafter, as per the instructions of (PW-8) Shri Surendrasinh Natvarsinh Gohil, the seals were broke open using a cutter and it were placed in a plastic envelope. Further, the container was examined by the Page 44 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined DRI officials in his presence as well as in presence of the witnesses. The container was found having 724 cartons, and in their presence, when the said cartons were opened, it was found that each carton contained 10 cement bricks. The DRI officials collected the samples from one of the cartons. He has further deposed that he had provided all the relevant documents to the DRI. A panchnama in this regard was also drawn in their presence. He has identified the seized muddamal. During his cross-examination, he has elicited that the documents he had referred to in his chief examination were not the original documents but the certified copies.
(4) Shri Hareshbhai Pachanbhai Maheshwari (PW-6) is an Assistant Manager working in M/s.Saurashtra Infra & Power Private Limited, Mundra (renamed as M/s.Saurashtra Freight Private Limited). The said firm is engaged in the business of providing manpower and equipment for the purpose of stuffing and destuffing of goods. In his evidence at Exh.80, he has deposed that in November 2015, they had received an email from M/s.Shreyas Relay Systems Limited, Mundra, instructing them to receive one container. The CFS is a custodial area where the stuffing and destuffing of goods are carried out in presence of the Page 45 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined customers. They were again instructed through email not to move the container from the port. Subsequently, on 16.11.2015, they had received a call from Shri Surendrasinh Natvarsinh Gohil (PW-8), a DRI officer, regarding movement of a container to the Saurashtra Containers Freight Station (CFS). Following the instructions, they had arranged for a trailer and brought the container from the Port to the CFS. The container was placed in the open yard, and under the instructions of the DRI officer Shri Gohil, in presence of the representative from the Customs House Agent and two independent witnesses, the container was examined and it was sealed with two seals, one affixed by M/s.Shreyas Relay Systems Limited, and another, by the Central Excise Department. As per the directions of the DRI officer Shri Gohil, they broke open the seals with a cutter. After the seals were cut and the container was opened, the container was destuffed by the labourers. On opening the container, 724 boxes were found in it, which were opened in presence of all the aforesaid witnesses. It was found that the said boxes contained cement bricks. Out of the said boxes, four bricks were collected as sample. A panchnama in this regard was drawn and he was instructed to keep the cargo in safe custody. This witness has produced various relevant documents viz. receipt memo, gate- Page 46 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined out-slip, gate-in-slip, weight-slip of the container, email correspondences and also the panchnamas vide Exhibits 82 to
86. In the aforesaid documents, the number of the container and the number of the trailer in which the container was transported have been clearly mentioned.
(5) Shri Rakesh Ishwar Ganveer (PW-7), who was working as an Assistant Manager (Operations) during the year 2015-2016 in M/s.Twenty Cubes Logistics, Gandhidham, has been examined by the prosecution at Exh.91. This witness is a panch-witness, in whose presence the container in question was examined by the DRI officer after it was called back from the high-sea on the basis of the secret inputs. He, in his evidence, has testified that on 16.11.2015, Shri Dharmarao Kilayaa Budda from M/s.Velji Dosabhai company had called him to inspect the container, as a witness. The DRI officer Shri Gohil had instructed him to verify that the container has been sealed from all the sides. In his presence, Shri Hareshbhai Pachanbhai Maheshwari (PW-6) from M/s.Saurashtra Infra & Power Pvt. Ltd., Mundra (CFS), was instructed by the DRI officer Shri Gohil to arrange for the labourers to destuff the cargo and to facilitate cutting of the seals of the container. He has further deposed that the Surveyor Page 47 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined from M/s.Bipin Marine Service was also present to conduct the survey of the container. The witness has stated that he had personally checked and verified that the container was sealed from all the sides. The videography of the entire process was done by a videographer. He further deposed that the seal was cut by the labourers in his presence as well as in presence of the other witnesses. The container was then opened and the cartons in it were checked one by one. He has deposed that in each of the cartons, two small packets of cement bricks were found. The witness affirmed his signature on the panchnama and also affirmed that the panch Shri Kiritbhai had also signed the panchnama in his presence. He has also affirmed his signature as well as the signature of the second panch on the weight-slip Exh.77. He has also identified his signature and the signature of the second panch on various relevant documents. He has further stated that four bricks were collected from different cartons as sample. Upon being shown the muddamal article no.3, he affirmed that it was the same brick that was taken as sample in his presence. During the cross-examination, this witness has elicited that neither he nor the second panch Shri Kiritbhai was a public servant. He has further stated that he is sure that the photographs were taken at that time.
Page 48 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined (6) The prosecution has also examined Shri Surendrasinh Natvarsinh Gohil (PW-8), a Senior Intelligence Officer of the DRI, Gandhidham. He, in his evidence at Exh.95, has deposed that in the year 2015 he was working as Senior Intelligence Officer at the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Gandhidham. During his tenure, his responsibilities included uncovering and investigating cases of smuggling, customs duty evasion and misuse of exemption notifications. He has further deposed that he had received a secret inputs about M/s.Amardeep Exports (a hundred percentage export oriented unit) allegedly exporting goods other than the declared goods. Upon investigation, it was found that M/s.Amardeep Exports had shipped one container for export to Dubai, which was not yet delivered to the intended buyer M/s.Secure Link General Trading, LC, Dubai (UAE). Therefore, the container was called back. The container was subsequently arrived at the Mundra Port and was transported to the Saurashtra Container Freight Station (CFS) on 16.11.2015. Thereafter, he, along with his senior (PW-21) Shri Nimbaram Sonaram Devasi, Deputy Director, DRI, had visited the CFS and instructed Shri Dharmarao Kilayaa Budda, the Customs House Agent for M/s.Amardeep Exports, to remain present at the CFS. Page 49 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined In addition, two panch-witnesses were also directed to remain present and they all had arrived at the CFS entry point at around 5:45 p.m., and after the introduction of Shri Dharmarao Kilayaa Budda and the panch-witnesses, the security personnel were instructed to call a responsible person Shri Hareshbhai Maheshwari, Assistant Manager (Operations). Upon being questioned by them, Shri Maheshwari responded that the container would be arriving. He then instructed the CHA Shri Dharmarao to submit the following documents :
(1) Shipping bill checklist;
(2) Bill of Lading;
(3) Invoice;
(4) Packing list;
(5) Annexure-C-1 (i.e. Central Excise Examination
Report);
(6) Customs copy of the shipping bill;
(7) Exporter declaration form.
(6.1) This witness has produced the certified copies of all the aforesaid documents vide Exhibits 106 to 111. He has further deposed that thereafter he had instructed the panch-witnesses to inspect the container from all the sides and to check and verify the seals. Upon examination, it was confirmed that the container was intact from all the sides and the seals were not Page 50 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined tampered with. Subsequently, both the seals were cut and removed and thereafter the container was destuffed with the help of labourers. Upon destuffing the container, in all, 724 boxes each containing 2 brown colour boxes were found from the container, and inside each brown colour box, 5 small boxes each containing 3 cement bricks were found. Out of the these, 4 samples were collected in presence of the panchas and other witnesses and were sent for the laboratory analysis. (6.2) The witness further stated that according to the shipping bill filed by M/s.Amardeep Exports, the declared goods were brass electrical parts, however, upon inspection, cement bricks were found from the container instead. This constitute a mis- declaration of the goods which amounts to fraud. As a result, the goods were liable to be confiscated by the department under Section 10 of the Customs Act, and accordingly, the goods were seized and the witness Shri Hareshbhai Maheshwari was instructed to keep it in the safe custody. He has stated that the entire process concluded at 11:15 p.m. and the panchnama in this regard was drawn accordingly. He obtained the signatures of the panchas, Shri Dharmarao Budda from the CHA and Shri Hareshbhai Maheshwari on the panchnama Exh.86 and the Page 51 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined copies of the panchnama were provided to Shri Hareshbhai Maheshwari and Shri Dharmarao Budda from the CHA. He had also confirmed his signature on the panchnama and identified the signatures of other witnesses and the panchas. (6.3) The witness further deposed that he had issued summons to the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani of M/s.Amardeep Exports and recorded his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. In the statement, the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had disclosed that due to financial crunch his property had been mortgaged to the bank, as a result, he had committed the fraud. This witness has further stated that he himself had recorded the statement of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani. The statement seems to have been exhibited by the trial court vide Exh.120. It reveals from the cross-examination of this witness that he had not produced the negative of the photographs and the videography was conducted by the office camera only and not by the professional cameraman.
(7) The prosecution has also examined Shri Munesh Singh Rajender Singh (PW-9), a Senior Intelligence Officer of the DRI, who had investigated the case registered by the DRI against Page 52 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined M/s.Amardeep Exports. He, in his evidence at Exh.126, has testified that he had joined the Customs Department in the year 2005 and was deputed to the DRI in the year 2012. He has stated that he took over the investigation of the case registered by the DRI against M/s.Amardeep Exports, which was initially investigated by the Senior Intelligence Officer Shri Surendrasinh Gohil and supervised by the Deputy Director Shri Nimbaram Sonaram Devasi. Upon Shri Gohil's transfer in June 2016, he had assumed the charge of the investigation. He has further testified that the case involved fraudulent export activities. Although the shipping bills submitted by M/s.Amardeep Exports had claimed the export of brass electrical parts, yet the DRI's verification revealed that cement bricks were shipped instead. He had recorded the statements of various individuals under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It was established that M/s.Amardeep Exports had exported cement bricks instead of the brass electrical parts, as declared.
(7.1) This witness has further stated that according to ARE-II return filed by M/s.Amardeep Exports for October 2015, the company had reported a closing balance of 99 MTs of mixed metal brass scrap. However, during the stock verification Page 53 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined panchnama carried out in the months of February-March 2016, the same was found 61 MTs only. He has stated that the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had admitted that the deficit quantity was diverted into the local market. This witness has identified the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani and has stated that the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had admitted to have exported cement bricks instead of brass electrical parts and confirmed that the stuffing took place at his factory. He also stated that both the appellants-accused were present at the factory premises during the stuffing. He has also stated that the bottle seal for the consignment was brought by one Shri Hitesh Sharma from the Central Excise office which was provided to him by the appellant-accused no.2 Inspector Rahul Chhabra. (7.2) The witness has further deposed that during the investigation, he had recorded the statement of the appellant- accused no.2 Inspector Rahul Chhabra under Section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein the accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra had admitted that since he was occupied with other work, he had signed the export documents in good faith on the instructions of the appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena, without personally visiting the factory premises during the stuffing of the Page 54 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined container. He has also admitted to have handed over the official bottle seal to Shri Hitesh Sharma. The witness has produced the statements of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani (Exhibits 127, 128 and 129); the accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra (Exh.130); Shri Hitesh Sharma (Exh.131) and Shri Jaysukh Ranparia (Exh.132) recorded by him under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The witness has admitted that Shri Anilkumar Dabas, Inspector, CBI, had also recorded his statement during the investigation of this case by the CBI.
(7.3) During the cross-examination, he has elicited that neither he had interrogated the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena nor recorded his statement. He claimed that he was investigating the case since January 2016. He has also elicited that during his investigation, he did not visit the factory premises of M/s.Amardeep Exports. He has specifically stated that the seal- movement register must be maintained by the department. (8) Shri Shankarbhai Jashabhai Bokha (PW-10), in his evidence at Exh.154, has deposed that in the year 2016, he was working as Superintendent and Incharge Administrative Officer in the Central Excise Department, Jamnagar Division, and that Page 55 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the CBI had recorded his statement in relation to the present case and he had provided the relevant documents with regard to the posting, resumption of duty, suspension, etc. of both the present appellants-accused.
(9) Shri Mohanlal Dhukalram (PW-11), in his evidence at Exh.165, has explained the departmental procedure in relation to the hundred percentage export oriented unit. (10) Shri S.Ramesh Shrinivas Raghvan (PW-13), in his evidence at Exh.180, has identified the signatures of both the appellants- accused on all the relevant documents submitted by M/s.Amardeep Exports, viz. ARE-I document list, shipping bills, invoice, Annexure C-1 examination report, etc. (Exh.167 collectively).
(11) Shri Vishalbhai Chhaganlal Ghamsani (PW-18), a nodal officer with Vodafone India Limited, in his evidence at Exh.263, has provided the details regarding the mobile phone no.9909722707 of the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena and the mobile phone no.9998812840 of the accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra.
Page 56 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined (12) Shri Nimbaram Sonaram Devasi (PW-21), the then Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Gandhidham, in his evidence at Exh.315, has testified that he was serving as Deputy Director, DRI, Gandhidham, from April 2015 to June 2017. He has stated that the CBI had requested for certain documents relating to a case registered against M/s.Amardeep Exports, which was investigated by the DRI. The DRI, during the investigation, had seized certain documents and drawn various panchnamas, which he had handed over to the CBI. He had identified the Panchnama drawn by the Senior Intelligence Officer Shri Munesh Singh (Exh.317) and had also confirmed the signature of Shri Munesh Singh on it. Further, he had identified the signature of Shri Munesh Singh on another panchnama Exh.318 relating to a factory search. The witness was shown the statement of the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena (Exh.319) recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein the accused no.1 has stated that he had endorsed and signed the consignment believing it to have been properly checked by the Inspector. In his cross-examination, this witness has elicited that he was having no personal knowledge regarding the panchnama and the file (Exh.321). He has also elicited that in Page 57 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the show-cause notice issued by the department, the present appellants-accused nos.1 and 2 were not mentioned as the accused. He denied the suggestion that the goods in the container exported by M/s.Amardeep Exports to Dubai were returned and no loss was caused to the Government during the proceedings.
(13) Shri Babulal Ugajibhai Rathod (PW-20), Bank Officer, was examined as a panch-witness. He, in his evidence at Exh.313, has testified that on 10.02.2016, he had accompanied the CBI officer to Plot Nos.414 and 417 in the GIDC, owned by M/s.Amardeep Exports. Upon arrival at the factory, it was found locked, therefore, a person named Shri Hirenbhai was called by the CBI, who had opened the lock of the factory. The officials then carried out the search, seized certain documents and prepared a search list, which he had signed. These documents are admitted in the evidence and have been exhibited at Exh.314 collectively.
(14) Shri Zakirhussain Noormohmmad (PW-22), Additional Director, GST, Intelligence, Ahmedabad, was examined at Exh.325. He, in his evidence, has stated that he was serving as Page 58 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Deputy Director, DRI, Jamnagar, from 2012 to 2016. He has testified that he had received the information from the DRI, Gandhinagar, regarding a case against the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, a partner of M/s.Amardeep Exports. He had recorded the statement of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani under Section 108 of the Customs Act and identified his signature on the statement (Exh.326). He has also confirmed the contents of the panchnama at Exhibits 317 and 318, both prepared in his presence. He has specifically stated that during the inspection of M/s.Amardeep Exports at Plot No.414, a deficit of raw-materials was noticed. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the department had issued notifications under the Customs Act allowing the DRI officers to conduct the verification or supervision of the physical stock of the export oriented units. He has elicited that M/s.Amardeep Exports is a partnership firm with Ankit Changani and Shri Dinesh Changani as the partners of the firm, and that the panchnamas Exhibits 317 and 318 do not bear the signature of either of the partners. When asked by the defence as to under which legal provision the panchnama of Plot No.414 was carried out, he had stated that it was carried out by the DRI, Jamnagar, under Section 105 of the Customs Act. In response to the defence counsel's reference to the Page 59 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Supreme Court judgment in the case of Canon India Pvt. Limited vs. Union of India, which held that the DRI officers lacked the authority to conduct such actions, the witness clarified that following the judgment, the Parliament has amended the law and the DRI officers now have the powers of Customs officers.
(15) The Investigating Officer Shri Anilkumar Dabas (PW-23), Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, in his evidence at Exh.333, has testified that based upon reliable information, the CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar, had registered a case RC1(A/216) against Roop Narayan Meena, the then Superintendent, Central Excise AR-II Range, Jamnagar, and others. The FIR filed by the then DIG & HOB, CBI, Gandhinagar, is produced at Exh.334. The witness has stated that the investigation of the said case was entrusted to him. He, in his evidence, has further testified that M/s.Amardeep Exports, a partnership firm with Ankit Changani and Shri Dinesh Changani as the partners, is an export oriented unit. He has testified that on 28.10.2015, the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena and the accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra, both the officers of the Central Excise Department had falsely certified the supervision and examination of the Page 60 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined consignment (i.e. the factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods report) with their official seals & signatures. He has further testified that it was revealed that M/s.Amardeep Exports had filed a shipping bill no.3814591 dated 29.10.2015 declaring the goods as brass electrical parts with a Free on Board valued at Rs.1.08 crore. The container no.BLJU2350372 was destined for M/s.Secure Link General Trading, LC, Dubai (UAE). He has testified further that based upon the specific intelligence, the DRI had recalled the container for inspection, and upon examination, it was discovered that it was entirely stuffed with cement bricks instead of brass electrical parts, as declared. The total financial loss caused to the Government was assessed at Rs.70,25,618=00. This witness has produced various documentary evidence collected during the investigation and identified his signature on them. He further testified that during his investigation, it was established that the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena and the accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra, while serving in their official capacity as public servants, had conspired with the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, a partner of M/s.Amardeep Exports, and as a part of the conspiracy, they had falsely certified the ARE-I document & invoice and had stuffed the container for export with cement bricks instead of Page 61 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined brass electrical parts, as declared. However, in reality, there was no such examination or supervision at the time of factory stuffing of the goods in the container and the same was, in fact, loaded with cement bricks. This fraudulent work was carried out to evade the applicable export duty and to divert the imported metal scrap into the domestic market. Consequently, they defrauded the Government by causing a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.70,25,618=00. During his cross-examination, he has elicited that he had neither prepared nor collected any panchnama during his investigation. However, he has clarified that he had obtained certified copies of the panchnamas, since the originals were kept by the DRI for their investigation. He has also elicited that he had not collected any photograph, soft-copy of the panchnamas or inquire about their hash value. He further acknowledged that he had not arrested any of the accused persons. He has also elicited that (PW-13) S.Ramesh Shrinivas Raghvan, Superintendent, CGST, had not produced any notification during the investigation. He further elicited that during his investigation, he had neither inspected any container or site nor had he visited the office of both the appellants- accused. He has also elicited that no adverse antecedents were found against the present appellants-accused during the Page 62 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined investigation.
(16) Shri Ashish Shashikant Joshi (PW-24), who was examined by the prosecution vide Exh.339, has deposed that in the year 2016, he was serving as Joint Secretary, Gandhidham Chamber of Commerce and Industries. He has stated that upon request from the CBI, he had submitted the certificate of origin and the related documents (Exh.340). He has further confirmed that the Chamber had the authority to issue such certificate and that M/s.Velji Dosabhai & Sons Private Limited Company at Mundra (a Customs House Agent) had applied for the certificate of origin on behalf of M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar. In his cross- examination, he has elicited that the CBI had not recorded his statement and his testimony was based solely upon the documents.
52. The prosecution has also produced on record various statements of the appellant-accused no.3 Ankit Changani, Shri Hitesh Sharma, Shri Jaysukh Ranparia and both the present appellants-accused recorded by the Intelligence Officer of the DRI during their investigation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 108 of the Customs Act reads as under : Page 63 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined "108. Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.--(1) Any Gazetted Officer of Customs [* * *] [The words "duly empowered by the Central Government in this behalf," omitted by Act 18 of 2008, Section 69 (w.r.e.f. 13.7.2006).] shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making under this Act.
(2) A summons to produce documents or other things may be for the production of certain specified documents or things or for the production of all documents or things of a certain description in the possession or under the control of the person summoned.
(3) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by an authorised agent, as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject, respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents and other things as may be required:Provided that the exemption under section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall be applicable to any requisition for attendance under this section.
(4) Every such inquiry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
(Emphasis supplied) Page 64 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
53. Since the inquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act is considered to be a judicial proceeding, all the statements recorded by the DRI officers during the investigation had been taken on record by the trial court. The details of which are as under :
SR. NAME DATE EXHIBIT
NO.
01 Ankit Changani 26.11.2015 120
02 Ankit Changani 19.02.2016 127
03 Ankit Changani 22.02.2016 128
04 Ankit Changani 09.03.2016 129
05 Roop Narayan Meena 02.03.2016 319
06 Rahul Chhabra 01.03.2016 130
07 Hitesh Sharma 18.04.2016 131
54. In the statement dated 26.11.2015 recorded by the DRI officers, the accused no.3 Ankit Changani has stated that due to his poor financial condition and the loss incurred in the business, he had exported cement bricks instead of brass electrical parts, as declared. He has explained that his house and the factory were mortgaged to the bank and he was trying to maintain a positive net foreign exchange (NFE). He has also stated that the cement bricks were purchased for Rs.24,500=00 through a broker stand at Bedi Gate in Jamnagar. He has stated Page 65 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined that he had purchased three tractors and cartons/boxes from M/s.Shiv Wooden Packing situated at GIDC, Phase-II, Dared. He has also asserted that he had booked the container no.BLJU2350372 through the Customs House Agent M/s.Velji Dosabhai & Sons Private Limited Company. He has also confirmed that the transporter engaged for the movement of the container was M/s.Trishul Transport Company. He has stated that, in all, 724 cartons were stuffed in the container no.BLJU2350372. It is noteworthy that, in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 26.11.2015 (Exh.120), the accused no.3 Ankit Changani has stated that on 28.10.2015, at the time of stuffing the goods into the container, both the appellants-accused were present at the factory premises. He has also stated that both the officers had opened and examined around 40 to 50 boxes, and thereafter, the boxes were stuffed into the container, and when the officer had left, he had removed around 35 to 40 cartons and replaced them with boxes packed with cement bricks. However, in his statement dated 09.03.2016 recorded by the DRI officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act (Exh.129), he changed the entire version. At the time of recording of this statement, he was questioned about his earlier statements dated 26.11.2015, Page 66 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 19.02.2016 and 22.02.2016, wherein he had stated that the Central Excise officers were present at his factory during the examination and stuffing of the goods into the container on 28.10.2015, but both the officers, in their respective statements, have stated that they had not visited the factory premises on that day. In response to this, he had specifically admitted that his previous statements were false, and further stated that, in fact, no Central Excise officer had come to examine the export goods or supervise the stuffing of the export container on 28.10.2015. He had also stated that he had made false statements to save his skin.
55. He has also specifically admitted that there was no stock of brass ingots and all the packets stuffed into the container bearing no.BLJU2350372 on 28.10.2015 were containing only the cement bricks. He has further admitted that 4.370 MTs of brass electrical parts were clandestinely removed in October 2015 in small lots of 100-200 kilograms. In the same manner, mixed metal brass scrap was also removed. However, he doesn't remember to whom this quantity of 4.370 MTs of brass electrical parts was sold.
Page 67 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
56. The prosecution has also produced the statement of Shri Hitesh Sharma, Accountant of M/s.Amardeep Exports, recorded by the DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act at Exh.131. He, in his statement, has stated that he was responsible for preparing all official correspondences and the export/import documents for M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar, including re- warehousing certificates, ARE-I forms, export invoices, Annexure-C1 examination report, packing lists, etc. Regarding the export consignment dated 28.10.2015, which was later on recalled by the DRI, he has stated that he was called by the accused no.3 Ankit Changani to his office on the evening of stuffing of the container. He has stated that he had prepared all the necessary export documents, and upon the instructions of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, he went to the Central Excise Range Office to obtain the signatures of the Inspector and the Superintendent (i.e. both the present appellants-accused) on the export documents. He has further stated that the documents were first signed by the Inspector, i.e. the present appellant- accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra, and then by the Superintendent, i.e. the present appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena. He has also stated that he had not inquired, as to whether the Page 68 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined officers would visit the factory premises for examination or not ? But, the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had instructed him to ask for the bottle seal of the Central Excise Department, and upon asking for the same, the Inspector, i.e. the appellant-accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra, had provided him a uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department. He has stated that no comments or queries were raised by either of the officers regarding the export consignment. Thereafter, he had returned to the office and handed over the signed documents and the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to the accused no.3 Ankit Changani. He has further stated that he could not recall as to whether the container was present at that time or not ? He has also stated that it was for the first time that he had personally collected the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal from the Central Excise office.
57. The prosecution has also placed on record the statement of the appellant-accused no.2 Inspector Rahul Chhabra recorded by the DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 01.03.2016 at Exh.130. In the statement, he has stated that during his posting in AR-II Range, Jamnagar, he was responsible for the Page 69 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined range duties which included preparing reports, verifying and signing ARE-I and ARE-III documents, maintaining records, scrutinizing rebate files and submitting required reports to the higher authorities. He has further stated that he was also required to attend the export container stuffing and import examination, whenever directed by the Superintendent, along with other assigned tasks. Regarding the procedure to be followed about the stuffing of goods for export by a hundred percentage export oriented unit, he has stated that the exporter was required to inform the Superintendent atleast 24 hours in advance, and depending upon the office workload, either the Superintendent alone or along with the officer would visit the factory premises for examination and supervision of the stuffing of the export goods. So far as the consignment in question is concerned, it was stated that on 28.10.2015 at around 12:30 p.m., he was informed by the Superintendent (i.e. the present appellant-accused no.1) about the scheduled stuffing of the export goods of M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar, and at that time, he was busy in preparing some reports and scrutinizing the rebate files. Thereafter, at around 5:30 p.m., a representative of M/s.Amardeep Exports Shri Hitesh Sharma had arrived with the necessary export documents, invoices-cum-examination Page 70 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined report, packing lists and ARE-I statement. He, in his statement, has further specifically stated that since he was busy and occupied, and upon the instructions of the Superintendent Roop Narayan Meena, he had signed all the export documents in good faith without even visiting the factory premises at the time of stuffing of the export goods. He has also confirmed that he had not examined or supervised the stuffing of the export goods and was unaware about what the Superintendent had done. However, he remembered that the Superintendent was present in the office when the export documents were brought. He has further stated that as per the direction of the Superintendent Roop Narayan Meena, he had handed over the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to the exporter's representative Shri Hitesh Sharma. He has further stated that all such seals were green in colour embossed with "Central Excise, Rajkot", but he did not remember the exact serial number on the seal. It is stated that the bottle seals are securely kept in the office with keys kept by both the officers. It is stated that the officer performing the examination and supervision of the stuffing of the export goods would carry the seal and affix it on the container after completion of the stuffing process. He has also stated that Page 71 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined he was unaware about the nature of the goods until he saw the documents, which mentioned items as the brass electrical parts. It is stated that no prior intimation or communication was received from the exporter regarding the consignment and he was only informed about the stuffing by the Superintendent (i.e. the present appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena).
58. During the recording of his statement by the DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act, his attention was drawn towards the circular regarding the duties of the Inspector (Sector Officer) and the Superintendent (Range Officer), and in response to the query of the DRI officials as to why he did not visit the factory premises of M/s.Amardeep Exports, examine and supervise the factory stuffing of the export goods, he has stated that he had joined the department on 24.02.2014, and upto the date of stuffing in question, i.e. 28.10.2015, he was having only 01 year and 04 months of experience in the department and had not even undergone any formal training on the subject. Based upon his limited knowledge, he had always attended examination and stuffing of the export goods, whenever instructed by his superior officer, i.e. the present appellant- accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena.
Page 72 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
59. The prosecution has also produced on record the statement of the appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena (i.e. the Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise, Range-II, Jamnagar) recorded by the DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act at Exh.319. In his statement, he has stated that the party intending to export the goods is required to inform the Superintendent atleast 24 hours in advance through a letter, email or telephonic call. After being informed about the arrival of the container for stuffing, he is required to instruct the Inspector to carry out the examination and supervision of the stuffing and thereafter to seal the container. He has further stated that if the Inspector is on leave, he is required to personally handle all exports related tasks. However, if the Inspector is present and if he is having no other work in the office, he is also required to accompany the Inspector for the examination, supervision and sealing of the export goods.
60. Regarding the export consignment in question, he has stated that the department was informed by M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar, on 27.10.2015, about the export scheduled for 28.10.2015, and a letter was also submitted to the Inspector Page 73 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Rahul Chhabra (i.e. the present appellant-accused no.2). On 28.10.2015 at around 2:00 p.m., the party had again telephonically informed regarding the examination, supervision and sealing of the export container. Although, he was not sure as to whether the call had come through a mobile or landline, however, he has confirmed that he had received a call. He has further stated that since he was occupied with the export oriented unit norms and fixation work and since such duties were normally attended to by the Inspector, he had not visited the factory premises. Later on, in the evening at around 18:00 hours, Inspector Rahul Chhabra (i.e. the present appellant- accused no.2) had produced the export documents with the counter-signature, which he had endorsed assuming that the inspection had been carried out. The appellant-accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra had also informed him that he had checked the documents. When asked about whether the accused Rahul Chhabra had been directed by him to sign the documents, he stated that he had not asked him to do so and the accused Rahul Chhabra himself had signed them and submitted on his own.
61. Regarding the issue of handing over the official bottle seal Page 74 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined of the Customs and Central Excise department to the representative of M/s.Amardeep Exports, he has clarified that he had not instructed the appellant-accused no.2 Inspector Rahul Chhabra to give the seal to anyone. He has explained that the bottle seals are kept in a locked cabinet in the Inspector's chamber with keys held by both the Superintendent and the Inspector (i.e. the present appellants-accused nos.1 and 2). It is stated that whoever goes for examination and supervision of the stuffing of the export goods, would take the seal with him to the site and affix it on the container after the stuffing process is completed. After admitting that he had signed all the export documents and the Annexure-C1 examination report, he stated that he had not gone to the factory premises of M/s.Amardeep Exports on 28.10.2015 for examination and supervision of the stuffing of the export goods. When asked about as to why he failed to ensure that the Inspector Rahul Chhabra had not carried out the prescribed function for the export consignment despite being jointly responsible and having expected to supervise the stuffing of the export goods, he responded that as per the duty allotment under the instructions, he had deputed Inspector Rahul Chhabra (i.e. the present appellant-accused no.2) for the examination, supervision and sealing of the Page 75 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined container. He has stated that he had acted in good faith assuming that the Inspector Rahul Chhabra would have fulfilled the responsibilities under his supervision.
62. After appreciating and analyzing the aforesaid evidence; both, oral as well as documentary, it appears that it is not in dispute, or rather an admitted fact, that during the commission of the alleged offence, the present appellants-accused Roop Narayan Meena and Rahul Chhabra were performing their duties as Superintendent and Inspector, respectively, in the Assessment Range-II of the Customs Department, Jamnagar, and the accused no.3 Ankit Changani was working as one of the partners in M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar (a hundred percentage export oriented unit, engaged in the business of importing duty-free raw-materials of mixed brass scrap with an obligation to export its entire production made out of such duty- free raw-materials). Therefore, it is called a hundred percentage export oriented unit.
63. According to the prosecution, the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani, in connivance with the present appellants- accused nos.1 and 2, hatched a criminal conspiracy, and in Page 76 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined furtherance to their common object, he dishonestly and fraudulently submitted false export documents, which were improperly and illegally endorsed by the present appellants- accused nos.1 and 2, disregarding the rules and regulations, thereby showing undue favour to M/s.Amardeep Exports and causing wrongful loss to the Government and the Public Exchequer to the tune of Rs.23,30,270=00 and corresponding wrongful gain to M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar.
64. Considering the specific charge against the appellants, the Court has scaled the entire evidence on record carefully. It appears that on 27.10.2015, the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani had made an arrangement of a container bearing no. BLJU2350372 through the Branch Manager Shri Dharmarao Kilayaa Budda (PW-5) and sent a request letter dated 27.10.2015 (Exh.321 collectively) to the present appellants for the export of the goods on 28.10.2015 which was declared as brass electrical parts valued at Rs.1.08 crore from a hundred percentage export oriented unit with ARE-I [Application for the Removal of Excisable goods for export document (Exh.167 collectively)]. As per ARE-I, the said consignment was to be exported to M/s.Secure Link, LC Dubai (UAE) on 28.10.2015. The said Page 77 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined container was stuffed with 724 cartons by submitting false export document (ARE-I), invoice, packing list, etc. (Exh.167 collectively).
65. It is alleged by the prosecution that both the present appellants accused, in connivance with the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani, had participated in the criminal conspiracy and endorsed all the aforesaid false export documents and also prepared a false factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods report dated 28.10.2015 with their seal & signatures (Exh.109).
66. The Court has also carefully gone through the factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods report signed by both the appellants-accused. In the aforesaid report dated 28.10.2015, after mentioning the entire details as to the invoice number, total number of packages, name & address of the consignee abroad, etc., it was certified that the declaration of the goods, the quantity and their value was as per the particulars furnished in the export invoice, and after mentioning the one time permission number (uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department), it Page 78 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined was endorsed that the container was verified before the stuffing and the same was found empty. It was also endorsed that the goods to be exported had been stuffed into the container under the direct supervision of both the appellants-accused. Thereafter, the Part-A Certificate of the Customs and Central Excise Department was issued by the appellants herein with their signatures (Exh.167 collectively), wherein it was certified that the owner had entered into Bond Nos.03 & 13/05-06 under Rule 19. It was further certified by both the appellants that they had opened and examined the cargo in loose/package no.10 and the particulars stated and description of goods mentioned overleaf and the packing list were found correct and all the goods were stuffed in the container no.BLJU2350372 with marks SL Dubai 1/724 and the same was sealed by one time seal bearing no.198635 (line), 023163 (excise). It was also certified that both the appellants-accused had verified the records and the exporter was only availing the export incentives as specified in box no.6 and found it to be true. It reflects from the aforesaid factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods report and Part- A Certificate of the Customs and Central Excise Department issued and signed by both the appellants-accused that the container no.BLJU2350372 was stuffed in their presence and Page 79 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined under their direct supervision and it contained brass electrical parts. It also reflects that after examining the stuffing of the container, they had sealed the container with the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department. It further appears from the evidence on record that on the next day of stuffing of the container, i.e. on 29.10.2015, the firm of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had filed a shipping bill (Exh.111) to the Customs Department with a description that the brass electrical parts are stuffed in the container.
67. It is the case of the prosecution that both the appellants- accused had intentionally endorsed all the false export related documents without even personally visiting the factory premises of M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamanagar, at the time of stuffing of the container; and without physically examining, verifying or supervising the stuffing of the container, they had prepared a false factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods report dated 28.10.2015 (Exh.109) as per ARE-I document & invoice, which was signed and submitted by the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani, and had also issued Part-A Certificate of the Customs and Central Excise Department. Not only this, the Page 80 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined appellants-accused, without even personally visiting the factory premises of M/s.Amardeep Exports and without examining or verifying the factory stuffing of the goods in the container, they had provided a uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, which, as per the rules and regulations, was strictly required to be kept in the custody of the authorized officers of the Customs Department (in the instant case, the present appellants-accused) and was also required to be affixed only by the authorized officers. Admittedly, the container was sealed with the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department.
68. It is noteworthy that this uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal was mentioned in the factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods report (Exh.109) as well as in the Part-A Certificate of the Customs and Central Excise Department. It has been specifically alleged that both the appellants-accused had done this with an assumtion that the container would not be checked again at the port. At this juncture, it is noteworthy that the Circular No.6/2002 - Page 81 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Customs dated 23.01.2002 issued by the Government of India (which is produced on record at Exh.160), clearly mandates that in case of export where the duty benefit is above Rs.1 lakh, 10 percentage of shipment shall have to be examined and checked on random basis, and in case of factory stuffing export cargo, if the export goods stuffed and sealed in presence of the Customs/ Central Excise officers at the factory of the manufacturer, ICD/CFS, notified warehouses and other places where the Commissioner has, by a special order, permitted examination of goods for export, no examination shall be required at the port except : (a) where the seals are found tampered with; or (b) there is a specific intelligence in which case the permission of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner would be required for checking. It is also prescribed in this Circular that in case of consignment where the amount of drawback - DPEB is involved more than Rs.1 lakh and the export consignment is shipped to sensitive places viz. Dubai (in the instant case), Sanghai, Singapore, Hongkong and Colombo, that the scale of examination is 50 percentage, and for rest of the places, it is 10 percentage. It also prescribes the proforma of the examination report of factory seal packages/container (i.e. Annexure-C-1). It appears that this Circular is in consonance with the Notification No.42/2001 Page 82 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined dated 26.06.2001 issued under the Central Excise Rule 19 (which is produced by the prosecution at Exh.161), wherein the procedure for removal of goods without payment of duty is prescribed as under :
"2. Procedure:
(i) Procedure for removal without payment of duty under this notification: - (a) After furnishing bond, a merchant-exporter shall obtain certificates in Form CT-1 specified in Annexure-III issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory or warehouse or approved premises or Maritime Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Board on this behalf and on the basis of such certificate he may procure excisable goods without payment of duty for export by indicating the quantity, value and duty involved therein;
(b) the exporter who has furnished bond shall ensure that the debit in bond account does not exceed the credit available therein at any point of time;
(c) the manufacturer-exporter may remove the goods without payment of duty after furnishing the letter of undertaking as specified under condition (i).
(d) such General bond or letter of undertaking shall not be discharged unless the goods are duly exported, to the Page 83 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or Maritime Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Board on this behalf within the time allowed for such export or are otherwise accounted for to the satisfaction of such officer, or until the full duty due upon any deficiency of goods, not accounted so, and interest, if any, has been paid.
(ii) Sealing of goods and examination at place of despatch. - (a) For the sealing of goods intended for export at the place of despatch, the exporter shall present the goods along with four copies of application in the Form A.R.E.-1 specified in Annexure-IV to the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise who will verify the identity of goods mentioned in the application and the particulars of the duty paid or payable, and if found in order, he shall seal each package or the container in the manner as may be specified by the Commissioner of Central Excise and endorse each copy of the application in token of having such examination done;
(b) the said Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise shall return the original and duplicate copies of application to the exporter and retain the quadruplicate copy;
(c) the triplicate copy of application shall be sent to the officer to whom bond or letter of undertaking has been furnished, either by post or by handing over to the exporter Page 84 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined in a tamper proof sealed cover after posting the particulars in official records;
(d) the exporter may prepare quintuplicate copy of application for claiming any other export incentive. This copy shall be dealt in the same manner as the original copy of application;
(e) in case of export by parcel post after the goods intended for export has been sealed, the exporter shall affix to the duplicate application sufficient postage stamps to cover postal charges and shall present the documents, together with the package to which it refers, to the postmaster at the office of booking.
(iii) Despatch of goods by self-sealing and self-
certification. - (a) Where the exporter desires self-sealing and self-certification for removal of goods from the factory, warehouse or any approved premises, the owner, the working partner, the Managing Director or the Company Secretary, of the manufacturing unit of the goods or the owner of warehouse or a person duly authorised by such owner, working partner or the Board of Directors of such Company, as the case may be, shall certify on all the copies of the application that the goods have been sealed in his presence, and shall send the original and duplicate copies of the application along with the goods at the place of export, and shall send the triplicate and quadruplicate copies of the application to the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Page 85 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Excise having jurisdiction over the factory, warehouse, any such approved premises within twenty four hours of removal of the goods;
(b) the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise shall, after verifying the particulars of the bond or letter of undertaking and endorsing the correctness or otherwise, of the particulars on the application, send to the officer to whom the bond or letter of undertaking has been furnished either by post or by handing over to the exporter in a tamper proof sealed cover after recording the particulars in the official records;
(c) The exporter may prepare quintuplicate copy of application for claiming any other export incentive. This copy shall be dealt in the same manner as the original copy of application;
(d) In case of export by parcel post after the goods intended for export has been sealed, the exporter shall affix to the duplicate application sufficient postage stamps to cover postal charges and shall present the documents, together with the package to which it refers, to the postmaster at the office of booking.
(iv) Examination of goods at the place of export. -(a) On arrival at the place of export, the goods shall be presented together with original, duplicate and quintuplicate Page 86 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined (optional) copies of the application to the Commissioner of Customs or other duly appointed officer;
(b) The Principal Commissioner of Customs or other duly appointed officer shall examine the goods with the particulars as specified in the application and if he finds that the same are correct and exportable in accordance with the laws for the time being in force, shall allow export thereof and certify on the copies of the application that the goods have been duly exported citing the shipping bill number and date and other particulars of export:
Provided that if the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise sealed packages or container at the place of despatch, the officer of customs shall inspect the packages or container with reference to declarations in the application to satisfy himself about the exportability thereof and if the seals are found intact, he shall allow export."
69. Thus, it clearly appears from the said Circulars that when an exporter opts for self-sealing and self-certification, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs or their designated officers shall examine the goods at the place of export against the particulars provided in the application (ARE-I). However, the proviso to this rule states that, if a Superintendent or Inspector of the Central Excise Department seals the Page 87 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined packages or container at the despatch location, the Customs officer shall inspect the seals, packages and the container in relation to the declaration in the application and if the seals are found intact, the officer will permit the export.
70. As noted earlier, the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani had opted for the factory stuffing of the export goods through a letter dated 27.10.2015 (Exh.321) addressed to the present appellant-accused no.1, whereby he had communicated about his intention to export the goods on 28.10.2015, which was declared as the brass electrical parts having a quantity of 24 MT valued at Rs.1.08 crore from a hundred percentage export oriented unit. He had also sent an application for removal of excisable goods for export (ARE-I) with the invoice, packing list, etc. (Exh.167 collectively). As per the said documents, the consignment of the brass electrical parts was to be exported to M/s. Secure Link, LC, Dubai (UAE). Admittedly, both the appellants-accused had endorsed all the documents and even had prepared the factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods report (Annexure-C1 at Exh.109) and issued the Part-A Certificate of the Customs and Central Excise Department, which read thus :
Page 88 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Annexure-C1 examination report Page 89 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined PART-A Certificate
71. The evidence also reveals that the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, with an intention to cheat the Government and to cause wrongful loss to the Public Exchequer, had hatched a criminal conspiracy along with the present appellants-accused, and in furtherance to the same, he had submitted entirely false export documents and the appellants-accused, without even personally visiting the factory premises of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani on 28.10.2015 at the time of stuffing of the container, had endorsed all the false export documents and had prepared a false factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods Page 90 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined report on the basis of the said documents and issued the Part-A Certificate as mentioned herein above, and shockingly, even provided a uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to Shri Hiteshbhai Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, and the same seal was affixed on the container in question. It is also established on record through cogent evidence that the container in question was, in fact, stuffed with the cement bricks in 724 cartons instead of the brass electrical parts, as declared in the aforesaid documents. This clearly suggests their involvement in alleged offence of conspiracy with an intention to cheat the Government Exchequer and grab the duty benefits on the raw-materials.
72. It appears that this has been mindfully done because all the three accused persons were having the knowledge of the procedure prescribed in the Circular No.6/2002 - Customs dated 23.01.2002 issued by the Government of India (Exh.160) that in case of factory stuffing export cargo, if the export goods stuffed and sealed with the official seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department in presence of the authorized officers of the department at the factory of the manufacturer, ICD/CFS, Page 91 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined notified warehouses and other places where the Commissioner has, by a special order, permitted examination of goods for export, no examination shall be required at the port except : (a) where the seals are found tampered with; or (b) there is a specific intelligence. The evidence on record clearly suggests that since it was in knowledge of all the accused persons that as per the procedure prescribed in the above Circular, if the Superintendent or Inspector of the Customs and Central Excise Department seals the packages or the container at the despatch location, the Customs officer on duty at the port will only inspect the seal affixed on the packages or the container and if the same is found intact, he will permit the export. By taking disadvantage of this loophole, the original accused no.3 Ankit Changani had opted for the factory stuffing and submitted all the false export documents declaring the export goods as brass electrical parts, and the present appellants, who were admittedly performing their duties as the Superintendent and the Inspector, respectively, in the Assessment Range-II of the Customs and Central Excise Department, Jamnagar, without examining, verifying or supervising the factory stuffing of the export goods or without even visiting the factory premises of the accused no.3, have not only endorsed all the false export documents but also Page 92 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined prepared a false factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods report (Annexure-C1) and issued a false Part-A Certificate. Not only this, they have also provided a uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, and the same seal was affixed on the container. It appears that since the seal was found intact, the Customs officer on duty at the port had allowed the export of the goods in the container to a sensitive place, i.e. Dubai, through a vessel. It is also established on record through cogent and convincing evidence that the container in question was, in fact, stuffed with the cement bricks in 724 cartons instead of the brass electrical parts, as declared in the export documents. Therefore, the act of both the appellants-accused (which includes the intentional omission) is clearly suggestive of joining their hands with the accused no.3 Ankit Changani (i.e. the Director of M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar) in the commission of alleged offence, because, without their endorsement and signatures on the export documents, Annexure-C1 examination report and Part-A Certificate, and without providing the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Page 93 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Department, the sanction for export of the container could not be accorded without the check by the customs officer on duty at the port.
73. This Court has also carefully considered the oral evidence of all the material witnesses, which have been narrated herein above along with the documentary evidence placed on record, which clearly establishes the entire chain of events of commission of the alleged offence. It clearly appears from the evidence that after the consignment was exported, the witness (PW-8) Shri Surendrasinh Natwarsinh Gohil (Senior Intelligence Officer of the DRI, Gandhidham) had received a secret input that M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar (a hundred percentage export oriented unit) is exporting goods other than the declared one, and upon investigation, he came to know that M/s.Amardeep Exports had shipped one container to Dubai for export, which was not yet delivered to the intended buyer (i.e. M/s.Secure Link General Trading, LC, Dubai (UAE). Therefore, the container was called back from the high-sea, which was subsequently arrived at the Mundra Port, and the same was transported to the Saurashtra Container Freight Station on 16.11.2015. It appears that Shri Surendrasinh Natwarsinh Gohil (PW-8) and his Page 94 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined superior officer Shri Nimbaram Sonaram Devasi (PW-21) had visited the location and instructed Shri Dharmarao Kilayaa Budda (PW-5), who was working as the Customs House Agent for M/s.Amardeep Exports, to remain present at the CFS along with two panch-witnesses, namely, Shri Kirit Patanwadiya and Shri Rakesh Ganveer (PW-7), at the CFS. Both the DRI officers had also called PW-6 Shri Hareshbhai Pachanbhai Maheshwari, Assistant Manager (Operations) in the CFS. Under the instructions of both the DRI officers, the CHA of M/s.Amardeep Exports, i.e. Shri Dharmarao Kilayaa Budda (PW-5), had produced the shipping bill check list, bill of lading, invoices, packing list, Annexure-C1 examination report, copy of the shipping bill and exporter's declaration form. All these documents have been produced vide Exhibits 106 to Exh.111. It appears that all these witnesses along with the panch-witnesses had then inspected the container from all the sides and also checked & verified the seals, and upon examination, it was confirmed that the container was intact from all the sides and the seals on the container were not found tampered with. Subsequently, the seals were removed with the help of a cutter and thereafter the container was destuffed with the help of labourers. Upon destuffing the container, in all 724 cartons were Page 95 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined found inside the container, all containing the cement bricks. Thereafter, the samples were collected and the panchnama (Exh.86) was drawn in this regard.
74. It is noteworthy that in all the export documents, Annexure-C1 examination report and even in the shipping bill filed by M/s.Amardeep Exports, the goods were declared as the brass electrical parts, however, upon examination of the container after it was called back from the high-sea, cement bricks were found in the container instead of the brass electrical parts, as declared. All the aforesaid facts have been proved through cogent evidence of Shri Surendrasinh Natwarsinh Gohil (PW-8), Shri Nimbaram Sonaram Devasi (PW-21), Shri Dharmarao Kilayaa Budda (PW-5) Customs House Agent for M/s.Amardeep Exports, panch-witnesses Shri Rakesh Ganveer (PW-7) and Shri Hareshbhai Pachanbhai Maheshwari (PW-6), Assistant Manager (Operations) in the CFS. The same is in corroboration with the documentary evidence at Exhibits 82 to 86 and Exhibits 106 to 111.
75. The evidence of the other witnesses, i.e. (PW-2) Shri Chhaganbhai Ravjibhai Tarpara, who provided the corrugated Page 96 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined boxes to the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, (PW-4) Shri Dipesh Anantrai Rajgor, who had supplied the empty container to the accused no.3 Ankit Changani on 27.10.2015 and brought it back to the port after stuffing all the goods at the factory premises on 28.10.2015 through Ms.Trishul Transport, (PW-5) Shri Dharmarao Kilayaa Budda, who received the container and the accompanying documents from the accused no.3 Srhi Ankit Changani and send it to the port by following due process, are also in corroboration with the aforesaid evidence and the same establishes the chain of events of export of goods in the container in question. It is pertinent to note that the invoices issued by M/s.Trishul Transport at Exh.67 clearly indicate that the container no.BLJU2350372 was transported by them on 27.10.2015 to the factory premises of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, and after stuffing of the goods, the same was brought back at the port. The number of the said container is also reflected in the panchnama (Exh.86) as well as in the lorry receipt dated 27.10.2015 and the invoice dated 30.10.2015 (Exh.67). At this juncture, it is also noteworthy that both the appellants have also not denied the aforesaid facts.
76. Admittedly, in the present appeals, the appellants-accused Page 97 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined have come out with a specific case that they had endorsed and signed all the export documents, Annexure-C1 examination report, which was prepared on the basis of the false export documents, and even provided the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3, in good faith without visiting the factory premises of the accused no.3 at the time of stuffing the export goods in the container on 28.10.2015, since they were occupied in other administrative work on the day of the factory stuffing of the export goods and M/s.Amardeep was the regular exporter.
77. The prosecution has, along with the documents at Exh.160 collectively, produced a Circular F.No.224/37/2005-CX-6 dated 24.12.2008 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, whereby the duties, functions and responsibilities of the Range Officer (Superintendent) and Sector Officer (Inspector) pertaining to a hundred percentage export oriented unit have been prescribed. It specifies the duties and responsibilities not only for the examination and sealing of the export consignment as per the rules and regulations of the Customs and Central Excise Department but also the duties and Page 98 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined responsibilities regarding the scrutiny, verification and monitoring of the ER-I/ER-II/ER-III returns (monthly or quarterly returns) of the production and removal of the goods and other relevant particulars, which are to be submitted to the Superintendent of the Customs and Central Excise, within a prescribed period as per the statutory requirement. It generally shows the opening and closing balance for a particular item for a specified period. It is established that the appellants-accused have also disregarded these instructions, since it is established that during the investigation by the DRI, a search was carried out at the factory premises of the accused no.3, and during the physical verification, a deficit of 61.237 MTs of the imported raw- materials was found, and upon further investigation, it was revealed that the accused no.3 had diverted the imported raw- materials of brass metal scrap into the domestic market. This fact is established by the prosecution through the convincing evidence of the Senior Intelligence Officer of the DRI and the Investigating Officer (PW-9) Shri Munesh Rajender Singh and (PW-21) Shri Nimbaram Sonaram Devasi, the then Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Gandhidham, who had collected various documents and panchnamas (Exhibits 317 and 318) regarding the search and physical verification at the Page 99 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined factory premises of M/s.Amardeep Exports and the panch- witness (PW-20) Shri Babulal Ugajibhai Rathod, Bank Officer. The documentary evidence as per the list (Exh.316) and the panchnamas at Exhibits 317 and 318 are also in corroboration with the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. Thus, it is clearly established from the aforesaid evidence that the appellants- accused had neither made any scrutiny of the monthly and quarterly returns, i.e. ER-I, ER-II and ER-III statements, nor had they even physically verified or monitored the opening and closing balance of the stock of the imported raw-materials and regarding the export of goods in the container in question shipped on 28.10.2015. The appellants-accused had, without even visiting the factory premises of the accused no.3, not only endorsed and signed all the false export documents, but had also prepared and certified the false factory stuffing examination and sealing of export goods report Annexure-C1, and had also issued the Certificate Part-A as well as provided the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3, which was affixed on the container in question, and since it was found intact, the Customs officer on duty at the port had not checked the Page 100 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined container and accorded sanction for export as per the rules and regulations. Thus, it clearly appears from the entire evidence that without the participation of both the appellants-accused in the above manner, the offence of cheating the Government and the Public Exchequer could not have been committed by the accused no.3 Ankit Changani. This clearly establishes the involvement of the appellants-accused in the alleged offence.
78. As mentioned herein above, the prosecution has also produced various statements of all the three accused as well as of Shri Hitesh Sharma and Shri Jaysukh Ranparia recorded by the Investigating Officer of the DRI during the investigation under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
79. Since the inquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act is considered as judicial proceeding, the prosecution has placed reliance on it. It appears that all the accused, in their respective statements, made some confession pertaining to the present offence. It is true that Section 108(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, provides that every such inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC, however, as per the settled legal position, the same cannot Page 101 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined be the sole base to hold the appellants guilty, since the confessional statement is a weak piece of evidence and the law casts a duty upon the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence. In the circumstances, the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, at the most, can be considered as a corroborative piece of evidence. However, considering the evidence as discussed herein above in details, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has, by leading cogent and convincing evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, with the help and active participation of both the appellants-accused, had exported the container stuffed with cement bricks instead of the brass electrical parts, as declared, and thereby caused loss to the Government and had also diverted the stock of the imported brass raw-materials into the domestic market, thereby causing loss to the Public Exchequer. It, therefore, clearly appears that the statements of both the appellants-accused and the accused no.3 as well as the statements of Shri Hitesh Sharma and Shri Jaysukh Ranparia recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are also in corroboration with the other substantial, cogent and convincing evidence led by the Page 102 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined prosecution. Considering the same, there remains no doubt regarding the involvement of the present appellants-accused in the alleged offence.
80. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the defence taken by both the appellants through their further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. by the trial court.
81. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena has taken a defence that as per the procedure laid down by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Circular F.No.224/37/2005-CX-6 dated 24.12.2008) (Exh.160), one of the duties of a Sector Officer (Inspector) is to examine and seal the export consignments under the Central Excise seal and to prepare a examination report accordingly. Following the same, he had deputed Inspector Rahul Chhabra (i.e. original appellant- accused no.2) to visit the factory premises of M/s.Amardeep Exports, based on their written intimation to carry out the examination and sealing of the container of the export goods. However, the accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra had not visited the factory premises of M/s.Amardeep Exports and had failed to Page 103 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined perform the duty assigned to him. Since he was not knowing about this fact, he had acted in good faith and had signed the examination report since the signature of Rahul Chhabra was already there on it.
82. Similarly, the appellant-accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra, in his additional submission made during his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Exh.402 has taken a specific defence that it is true that he had not attended the stuffing of the export container of M/s.Amardeep Exports (a hundred percentage export oriented unit) on 28.10.2015, however, it is also true that he was neither informed nor aware about the arrival of the container or the stuffing schedule. It is stated that without any prior intimation or deputation by his superior officer (i.e. the present appellant- accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena), he had no means to know about the stuffing of the export goods and, therefore, he could not remain present at the time of stuffing of the export goods in the container in question. It is stated that the appellant-accused no.1, though was outside the office, yet he was aware about the stuffing of the export goods in the container. Moreover, neither the exporter (i.e. the appellant-accused no.3 Ankit Changani) nor Page 104 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined his representative Shri Hitesh Sharma had contacted him regarding the stuffing of the container. He has specifically taken a defence that the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department was handed over to the exporter's representative Shri Hitesh Sharma, as per the oral instructions of the appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena, which, otherwise could not have been done without the direction of the accused no.1, presuming that the accused no.1, being out of the office for a significant time, might have personally attended the stuffing of the container. However, it is also on record that there was no communication between him and the accused no.3 or his representative on the day or the day before the stuffing of the container. He has stated that he had acted in good faith and in the interest of the department to complete the work with the representative who was available at that time, which indicates that the exporter had not informed him about the arrival or stuffing of the container. Moreover, he has specifically taken a defence that he was unaware about the actual goods stuffed in the container as against the declared brass electrical parts and had signed the export documents in good faith based on the oral instructions of the accused no.1, presuming that he had personally supervised the stuffing of the Page 105 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined container.
83. On the basis of the aforesaid stand taken by both the appellants-accused, one of the submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr.Trivedi is that admittedly the trial court, after appreciating the entire evidence, has acquitted both the appellants-accused from the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has convicted them only for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, since there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellants herein had demanded any bribe from anyone or they had obtained any undue advantage or favour from anyone and there is no past antecedent. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellants herein have been illegally benefited. While pointing out to the statements of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani dated 26.11.2015, 22.02.2016 and 09.03.2016, it is submitted that it was the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, who, due to financial crunches and with a view to recover loss occurred in the business, had attempted illegal export of the cement bricks instead of the brass electrical parts, Page 106 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined as declared in the export documents, and both the appellants were not aware that instead of the declared goods, the exporter was trying to illegally export the cement bricks. It is submitted that since both the appellants were not aware about such illegal export and even about the clandestinely removal of the imported brass raw-materials, no motive or mens rea can be attributed to the present appellants-accused.
84. It is also submitted that considering the CDR produced by the prosecution at Exh.299, it appears that on 28.10.2015, the appellant-accused no.1 was not in the office between 2:01 p.m. to 5:01 p.m. and the appellant-accused no.2 was not in the office between 10:44 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. Therefore, both the officers had believed that the other officer might have gone for the verification of the factory stuffing of the export goods on 28.10.2015, and due to this confusion, they had signed all the export documents in good faith since they were occupied in other administrative work and M/s.Amardeep Exports was the regular exporter. It is also submitted that since there is no evidence on record to show the meeting of minds and also to prove that the appellants have been illegally benefited, no ingredients of conspiracy and even of cheating can be said to have been Page 107 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined attracted. Therefore, the conviction under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be justified.
85. After giving thoughtful consideration to the defence taken by both the appellants as well as the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr.Trivedi and also considering the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the defence taken by both the appellants-accused is not at all palatable. Further, it appears that both the appellants-accused have deliberately tried to shift the entire blame for the alleged offence not only on the accused no.3 but also on each other.
86. It is the say of the appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena that as per the Circular No.F.224/37/2005-CX-6 dated 24.12.2008, he had deputed the appellant-accused no.2 Inspector Rahul Chhabra to visit the factory premises of the accused no.3 Ankit Changani on 28.10.2015, based on their written intimation to carry out the examination and stuffing of the export goods and sealing of the export container, however, he had not visited the factory premises and had failed to perform the duty assigned to him. Since he was not knowing about this fact, he had signed the Annexure-C1 examination report in good Page 108 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined faith since the signature of Rahul Chhabra (appellant-accused no.2 Inspector) was already there on it. It is noteworthy that there is not a single piece of evidence on record to show that the appellant-accused no.1, by any general or specific written order or even through some sort of endorsement made on the written intimation letter dated 27.10.2015 of M/s.Amardeep Exports, had assigned the duty to the appellant-accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra directing him to visit the factory premises of the accused no.3 and to carry out the physical verification and examination of the stuffing of the export goods into the container on 28.10.2015, which was admittedly to be exported at the sensitive place, i.e. Dubai (UAE). Further, there is no endorsement on any of the documents, viz. "Inspector to visit the factory premises of the accused no.3 and carry out the examination and verification of the stuffing of the export goods into the container". Further, the appellant-accused no.1, during the inquiry of the DRI officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, had specifically stated that on 27.10.2015, the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had submitted a written intimation to the appellant-accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra intending export of goods on 28.10.2015 and the same was also conveyed on telephone at around 12:00 hours on 28.10.2015. This, being an undisputed Page 109 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined fact, can be taken into consideration. It is hard to believe that though intimated twice that the accused no.3 is intending to export goods at the sensitive place, i.e. Dubai, and knowing fully well that as per the rules and regulations atleast 50% of the goods is mandatory to be checked physically, however, he being a responsible officer, had not issued any written order to the accused no.2 and had also chosen not to even verify, whether or not the accused no.2 had visited the factory premises of the accused no.3 for the verification and examination of 50% of the export goods at the time of stuffing.
87. Significantly, the appellant-accused no.2 has also taken the stand that he had not attended the factory stuffing of the container in question on 28.10.2015 because he was neither informed nor aware about the arrival or the stuffing schedule, however, stated that the accused no.1 was aware about it. The defence taken by him is that he had signed all the export documents as well as the Annexure-C1 examination report and had also provided the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to the representative of the accused no.3, as per the oral instructions of the accused no.1, presuming that the accused no.1 had Page 110 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined personally attended the stuffing of the container. This contention of the appellant-accused no.2 seems to be unbelievable, since, during the proceedings under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the statements of both the appellants were recorded. Considering the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, the undisputed facts can certainly be taken into consideration. It reflects from the aforesaid evidence that a written intimation intending the export of the goods on 28.10.2015 was sent by the accused no.3 to the office on 27.10.2015, and again on 28.10.2015 at around 14:00 hours, a telephonic intimation was given. It is the say of the accused no.2 that presuming that the accused no.1 had attended the factory stuffing of the export goods, he had signed all the export documents in good faith. This clearly suggests that he was having prior knowledge about the stuffing schedule. Further, when the appellant-accused no.2 Inspector Rahul Chhabra was having the knowledge that the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal was strictly required to be kept in lock and key and can only be used by the authorized officer, and that too, for the sealing of the container after due examination and verification of the export goods at the time of the factory stuffing, yet he had provided it to a private person, and that too, without verifying from the accused no.1, whether he had Page 111 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined attended the factory stuffing or not, cannot be believed to have been done in good faith since he was knowing that the Customs officer on duty at the port will verify and confirm only that the seal applied on the container is intact and then allow the export of the container. As specifically observed by this Court, without the active participation on the part of the appellants in the above manner, it could not have been possible for the accused no.3 Ankit Changani to export the goods other than the declared one in the export documents (i.e. the cement bricks instead of the brass electrical parts).
88. It also appears from the CDR at Exhibits 299 and 300 that the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena and Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3, were in contact with each other since long, as the CDR shows that prior to the date of the alleged offence (i.e. 28.10.2015), the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had made around 120 calls to the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena and the accused no.1 had made around 125 calls to the accused no.3. Similarly, Shri Hitesh Sharma had made 62 calls to the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena and the accused no.1 had made 35 calls to him. It also shows that on the day of the factory stuffing Page 112 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined of the export goods into the container, i.e. on 28.10.2015, the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena had made 3 calls to the accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra (i.e. at 9:49:37, 15:55:58 and 15:57:52 hours). Similarly, the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had made a call to the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena at 15:54:32 hours. The CDR also shows that the accused no.1 had also made a phone call to the accused no.3 at 17:25:15 hours, and thereafter Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3 had made a phone call to the accused no.1 at 18:09:35 hours. This timing sequence also establishes a clear link between all the three accused persons and Shri Hitesh Sharma on the day of the factory stuffing of the export goods into the container on 28.10.2015. It appears that after all the necessary conversation amongst all the four, the export documents and the Annexure-C1 examination report were signed by both the appellants-accused and the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department was provided to Shri Hitesh Sharma, and that too, admittedly without even visiting the factory premises of the accused no.3 at the time of the factory stuffing of the export goods into the container.
Page 113 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
89. It is an admitted fact that the Customs officers on duty at the port had verified the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department, and since it was found intact, they had allowed the export. As mentioned herein above, on the basis of the secret inputs, when the container was called back by the DRI from the high-sea and inspected by the DRI officials in presence of the witnesses and the panchas, the seal was found intact, and when the container was destuffed, all the 724 cartons were found containing the cement bricks instead of the brass electrical parts, as declared in the export documents. Considering this clinching documentary evidence, it becomes very hard to believe that both the appellants-accused were unaware about the facts, and acting in good faith, they had signed all the export documents and the Annexure-C1 examination report as well as provided the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to the exporter. It clearly appears from the aforesaid evidence that the appellants have deliberately disregarded the mandatory provisions and the rules & regulations of the department. Further, considering the entire evidence on record and considering the conduct of both the appellants-accused as well as considering the call details record, Page 114 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined it can be said that the prosecution has established the entire chain of circumstances, which clearly suggests not only the meeting of minds, motive and the mens rea but also the active participation by intentional omission and intentional act too, which completed the entire offence.
90. In support of his contention that no ingredients of criminal conspiracy can be said to have been proved, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has relied upon the following judgments:
K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala (2005) 12 SCC 631 Ramesh Bhai & Another vs. State of (2009) 12 SCC 603 Rajasthan C. Chenga Reddy & Others vs. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 Ram Sharan Chaturvedi vs. State of Madhya (2022) 16 SCC 166 Pradesh Praveen @ Sonu vs. State of Haryana 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184 Maghavendra Pratap Singh alias Pankaj 2023 SCC OnLine SC Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh 486 Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State (2005) 5 SCC 294 of Maharashtra & Another Tarseem Kumar vs. Delhi Administration 1994 Supp (3) SCC 367 Nandu Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC (Now Chhatisgarh) 1454 Saju vs. State of Kerala 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1588 Rameshchandra Bhogilal Patel vs. State of 2010 SCC OnLine Guj Gujarat & Anr. 13837 Page 115 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
91. The sum and substance of all these judgments is that since there cannot be a direct evidence of conspiracy, the same can be proved only through circumstantial evidence and each of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and all the circumstances must form a chain of events which must lead to the guilt of the accused and none else.
92. The Supreme Court has very elaborately discussed the concept of conspiracy in the case of Nalini (supra). The Supreme Court has explained - who can be considered involved in a conspiracy ? what the essential elements of the offence are ? what can be the evidence to prove and on what basis the conspiracy can be inferred ? Additionally, the Supreme Court has outlined what essential facts the prosecution must establish in order to prove the offence of conspiracy ? In paragraph 583 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has summarised some of the broad principles governing the law of conspiracy as under :
"(1) Under Sec. 120A, IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it Page 116 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined is legal act by illegal means overt act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence. The question for consideration in a case is did all the accused had the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that offence be committed.
(2) Acts subsequent to the achieving of object of conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused was party to the conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent act, which may be unlawful, would not make the accused a part of the conspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder.
(3) Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence.
Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
(4) Conspirators may, for example, be enrolled in chain A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on and all will be members of the single conspiracy if they so intend and agree, even Page 117 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined though each member knows only the person who enrolled him and the person whom he enrolls. There may be a kind of umbrella-spoke enrolment, where a single person at the centre doing the enrolling and all the other members being unknown to each other, though they know that there are to be other members. These are theories and in practice it may be difficult to tell whether the conspiracy in a particular case falls into which category. It may, however, even overlap. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse role to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role.
(5) When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. (6) It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the Page 118 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
(7) A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it is forced them into a joint trial and the Court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the accused has knowledge of object of conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the charge of conspiracy Court has to guard itself against the danger of unfairness to the accused. Introduction of evidence against some may result in the conviction of all, which is to be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any other substantive offence prosecution tries to implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy itself but also in the substantive crime of the alleged conspirators. There is always difficult in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy. As observed to Judge Learned Hand that "this distinction is important today when many prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders".
(8) As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not Page 119 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. (9) It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and that there is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible therefor. This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or furtherance of the common purpose is deemed to have been said, done, or written by each of them. And this joint responsibility extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators pursuant to the original agreement but also to collateral acts incident to and growing out of the original purpose. A conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done by a co-conspirator after termination of the conspiracy. The joinder of a conspiracy by a new member does not Page 120 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined create a new conspiracy nor does it change the status of the other conspirators, and the mere fact that conspirators individually or in groups perform different tasks to a common end does not split up a conspiracy into several different conspiracies.
(10) A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the other but the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime."
93. In paragraphs 654 to 665, the Supreme Court has further observed as under :
"654. To record conviction under Sec. 120-B, it is necessary to find the accused guilty of criminal conspiracy as defined in Sec. 120-A of Indian Penal Code which reads as under :
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done - (1 an illegal act, or (2 an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal Page 121 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined conspiracy; Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
655. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are : (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either
(a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. The proviso and the explanation are not relevant for the present discussion.
656. Though the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing/or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy, yet in the very nature of the offence which is shrouded with secrecy no direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators can normally be produced before the court. Having regard to the nature of the offence, such a meeting of minds of the conspirators has to be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution, if such an inference is possible.
657. In Sardar Sardal Singh Caveeshar vs. State of Page 122 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined maharashtra [1964 2 SCR 378], Subba Rao, J. speaking for himself and his learned colleagues, observed:
"The essence of conspiracy is, therefore, that there should be an agreement between persons to do one or other of the acts described in the section. The said agreement may be proved by- direct evidence or may be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties."
658. In Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi & Ors. vs. State of maharashtra [1980 2 SCC 465], S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J"
speaking for a two-Judge bench, observed :
"It is manifest that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design which has been amply proved by the prosecution as found as a fact by the High court."
659. In Mohammad Usman Mohammed Hussain Maniyar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, [1981 2 SCC 443], another two-Judge bench of this court pointed out;
"For an offence under Sec. 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do and/or cause to be done the Page 123 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In this case, the fact that the appellants were possessing and selling explosive substances without a valid licence for a pretty long time leads to the inference that they agreed to do and/or caused to be done the said illegal act, for, without such an agreement the act could not have been done for such a long time."
660. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Krishan Lal Pardhan & Ors. [1987 2 SCC 17], Natarajan, J. observed :
"In the opinion of Special Judge every one of the conspirators must have taken active part in the commission of each and every one of the conspiratorial acts and only then the offence of conspiracy will be made out. Such a view is clearly wrong. The offence of criminal conspiracy consists in a meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means, and the performance of an act in terms thereof. If pursuant to the criminal conspiracy the conspirators commit several offences, then all of them will be liable for the offences even if some of them had not actively participated in the commission of the offences."
661. In State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Somnath Thapa & Ors. [1996 4 SCC 659], Hansaria, J" speaking for a three- Page 124 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Judge bench of this court after elaborate discussions of the various judgments of this court, concluded thus:
"To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an Illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use."
662. From a survey of cases, referred to above, the following position emerges :
In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or more persons share information about doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. This is the first stage where each is said to have knowledge of a plan for committing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Among those sharing the information some or all may form an intention to do an Page 125 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Those who do form the requisite intention would be parties to the agreement and would be conspirators but those who drop out cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of mere knowledge unless they commit acts or omissions from which a guilty common intention can be inferred. It is not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from inception to the end of the conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them and some others may quit from the conspiracy. All of them cannot but be treated as conspirators. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences.
663. The agreement, sine qua non of conspiracy, may be proved either by direct evidence which is rarely available in such cases or it may be inferred from utterances, writings, acts, omissions and conduct of the parties to the conspiracy which is usually done. In view of Sec. 10 of the Evidence Act anything said, done or written by those who enlist their support to the object of conspiracy and those who join later or make their exit before completion of the object in furtherance of their common intention will be relevant facts to prove that each one of them can justifiably be treated as a conspirator.
Page 126 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
664. Sec. 10 of the Evidence Act recognises the principle of agency and it reads as follows:
"10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.- 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 them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well 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."
665. To apply this provision, it has to be shown that (1) there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together; and (2) the conspiracy is to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. If these two requirements are satisfied then anything said, done or written by any one of such persons after the time when such intention was entertained by any one of them in furtherance of their common intention, is a relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy and also for the purpose of showing that any such person is a party to it."
Page 127 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
94. As discussed herein above, the prosecution has established all the circumstances by leading cogent, convincing and clinching evidence, which are suggestive of the motive, mens rea and even meeting of minds of both the appellants-accused and joining their hands with the accused no.3 in commission of the offence of cheating by evasion of duties. All the circumstances clearly establish that both the appellants had deliberately disregarded the mandatory provisions of the rules & regulations as well as the circulars of the department by intentional omission (i.e. by not visiting the premises of the accused no.3 and not examining, verifying and supervising 50% of export goods at the time of factory stuffing and even by not making scrutiny and physical verification of the stock of imported raw- materials and monitoring of ARE-I, II and III statements showing opening and closing balance of the stock of imported raw- materials) and by intentional act (i.e. providing the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the department to the unauthorized person of the accused no.3, without even visiting the premises of the accused no.3 and without examining the goods as per the law, so that there may not be further examination on the port and the container can be allowed for Page 128 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined export), which clearly establishes their joining hands with the accused no.3 in the commission of the offence.
95. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi has also argued that as observed in the impugned judgment, a clear case of cheating is made out only against the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, a partner of M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar, and not against the present appellants-accused.
96. It is argued that there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellants have been benefited either way by committing the offence as alleged since they have not deceived any person or even the Government dishonestly. Therefore, they cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that, at the best, it is the case of negligence in performing the official duty, for which, the appellants are already facing departmental proceedings.
97. Section 420 provides for the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The offence involves deceiving someone to gain profit or advantage through dishonest Page 129 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined means, knowing it well that it will cause unfair harm to the other person. In the instant case, the offence of cheating is clearly established against the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, a partner of M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar. It is settled that to prove the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved :
(i) The representation made by the person was false.
(ii) The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false.
(iii) The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made (in the instant case, the Government or the Public Exchequer).
(iv) The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed.
98. The evidence on record clearly established all the aforesaid ingredients qua the accused no.3 Ankit Changani, a partner of M/s.Amardeep Exports. It is noteworthy that the case against Page 130 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the present appellants-accused is of joining hands in the conspiracy hatched by the accused no.3, and in furtherance thereto, of participation by intentional act and intentional omission.
99. As discussed herein above, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that in furtherance to the conspiracy, the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had sent a written intimation on 27.10.2015 intending to export goods (i.e. brass electrical parts valued at Rs.1.08 crore) to M/s.Secure Link, LC, Dubai (UAE), and had submitted false export documents. Since the exporter had opted for the factory stuffing and sealing of the export goods and since it was to be exported at the sensitive place like Dubai, as per the mandatory rules & regulations as well as the circulars of the department, the officers of the Central Excise Department AR-II, Jamnagar Range (i.e. the present appellants-accused) were duty- bound to physically examine and verify atleast 50% of the export goods and supervise the stuffing of the goods at the factory premises and then to affix the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department, which suggest that the export goods was physically examined and verified by the officers of the Central Excise Page 131 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Department and it was the same goods as declared in the export documents. The officers were also required to prepare the Annexure-C1 examination report of the physical examination and verification of the export goods at the time of stuffing of the container. If it has been done by the officers of the Central Excise Department, then as per the prescribed procedure and rules, the Customs Officer on duty at the port shall have to allow the export. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt, through cogent and convincing evidence, that knowing it well about this loophole in the system, the accused no.3 Ankit Changani had submitted false export documents like ARE-I forms, shipping bill check list, bill of lading, export invoices, Annexure-C1 examination report, packing list, exporter's declaration form, etc., declaring the export goods to be the brass electrical parts, but, in fact, the goods stuffed in 724 cartons to be exported in the container bearing no.BLJU2350372 were the cement bricks. The present appellants-accused, though were duty-bound to physically examine and verify the export goods at the time of stuffing of the container, had intentionally chosen not to even visit the factory premises of the accused no.3 at the time of stuffing of the export goods in the container, and without even visiting the factory premises and without examining or verifying the goods Page 132 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined physically, they had endorsed all the false export documents at their office. They had also endorsed, signed and certified the false Annexure-C1 examination report (which is to be prepared by the officers of the Central Excise Department) and had also certified that upon their physical verification, the goods were found the same as declared in the export documents. Not only this, they had also provided the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department (which is mandatory to be kept in lock and key custody of the authorized officer only - in the instant case, both the appellants-accused) to the unauthorized private person Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3, and the said seal was affixed by the accused no.3 on the container. It is proved that the Customs Officer on duty at the port had verified this uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department, and since it was found intact, he had allowed the export and the container was exported through a vessel to Dubai. Assuming for the moment that if the container would have been stuffed with some illegal contraband or arms and ammunition, then what would be the consequences or repercussion of it on the nation ?
Page 133 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
100. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that after the export of the container in question to Dubai, the DRI officers had received a secret input, and on the basis of the same, the container was recalled from the high-sea. The container was, thereafter, inspected and examined by the DRI officers in presence of the witnesses and panchas after following the due procedure, and since the seal was found intact, the container was opened and destuffed and thereafter it was discovered that instead of the brass electrical parts, as declared and certified in the export documents and even in the Annexure-C1 examination report, all the 724 cartons were, in fact, stuffed with the cement bricks. Therefore, the goods were seized and a case was registered against M/s.Amardeep Exports, Jamnagar. It is also established through convincing evidence, during the investigation, that both the appellants-accused had intentionally not made the mandatory scrutiny of the ARE-I return submitted by the accused no.3 and had not even physically verified or monitored the stock of the imported raw-materials and the removal of the manufactured goods therefrom. It is also established that by exporting the cement bricks instead of the brass electrical parts, as declared, and by diverting the imported raw-materials into the domestic market, the accused no.3, with Page 134 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined the help and active participation of the present appellants- accused, caused a huge loss to the Government and the Public Exchequer to the tune of Rs.93,55,888=00 (Rs.70,25,618=00 plus Rs.23,30,270=00).
101. It is also established from the CDR (Exhibits-299 and 300) that the accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena, accused no.3 Ankit Changani and Shri Hitesh Sharma were in close contact with each other since long. It is also established that on the day of stuffing of the export goods in the container, all the accused persons and Shri Hitesh Sharma were in contact with each other, and after the communication amongst them, all the export documents along with the Annexure-C1 examination report were signed and the appellant-accused no.2 Rahul Chhabra had handed over the uniquely numbered one time official bottle seal of the Customs and Central Excise Department to a private person Shri Hitesh Sharma, a representative of the accused no.3. This Court has, therefore, observed more than twice that without the active participation, by intentional omission and intentional act, on the part of the appellants-accused, it was not at all possible for the accused no.3 to commit the offence of cheating. This clearly proves the joining of hands by the present Page 135 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined appellants-accused with the accused no.3. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appreciation of evidence on record and the conclusion arrived at by the trial court cannot be said to be unjust or improper or illegal.
102. As discussed herein above, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code provides for the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. 'Dishonestly' has been defined in Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code as under :
"24. Dishonestly.--Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing 'dishonestly'."
103. In the instant case, as discussed herein above in details, the evidence clearly establishes that both the appellants-accused had joined hands with the accused no.3, who hatched the criminal conspiracy to cheat and deceive the Government and the Pubic Exchequer by taking disadvantage of the loophole in the system and by exporting the goods other than the one declared in the export documents, and they both had actively participated in the offence by intentional omission and intention Page 136 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined act, thereby facilitating the accused no.3 in committing the entire offence. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned advocate Mr.Trivedi that since there is no evidence on record to suggest that both the appellants-accused have been benefited, no offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been committed by the appellants-accused, would be of no avail to them since from the conjoin reading of Sections 415 and 23 of the Indian Penal Code, it clearly appears that the trial court has rightly convicted both the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to note that there cannot be a direct evidence regarding the illegal monetary benefit.
104. In this regard, learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.Kodekar has vehemently submitted that the CBI has also filed a separate case being Special Case No.07 of 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant-accused no.1 Roop Narayan Meena and his wife, inter alia, alleging possession of disproportionate property, which was found 85.12% more than his known sources of income. It is submitted that during the investigation of the said case, the appellant-accused no.1 Page 137 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined was found having ownership of the following movable and immovable properties :
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SR. PARTICULARS NO.
01 House situated at Plot No.21B/A, Park Colony, Near Panchvati Society, Pandit Nehru Marg, Jamnagar.
(Roop Narayan Meena) 02 Farm House at Plot No.21, Vaishali Farms situated at Survey No.132, Village-Lakha Baval, Jamnagar.
(Smt. Rameshwari Roop Narayan Meena, Wife of Roop Narayan Meena) Not Intimated to the Deptt.
03 Plot No.16 situated at Revenue Survey No.131, Lakha-Baval, Jamnagar.
(Shri Akash Roop Narayan Meena, Son of Roop Narayan Meena) Not Intimated to the Deptt.
04 A House situated at South Part of Plot No.264, Kusum Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
(Smt. Rameshwari Roop Narayan Meena) Not Intimated to the Deptt.
05 A Plot No. 214, KusumVihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Purchased from Shri Ram Sahay Meena, Father of Rameshwari Meena - gifted this house to his daughter vide Gift Deed dated 08.09.2010 during his life time. Not Intimated to the Deptt.
VEHICLES 01 A new Skoda Laura Car (Chassis no.TMBCMC121CA150999;
Engine No.CLC0717740; Registration No.GJ-12-BF-7481) in the name of Rakesh Manilal Barai (a close friend of R.N.Meena) but the same is used by R.N.Meena and his family members. Further he had only got insured the car. Not Intimated to the Deptt.
Page 138 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 02 A new Ford Fiesta Car Registration No.RJ-34-CA-0130 in the name of Shri Hari Narayan Meena (father of R.N.Meena) used by R.N.Meena. Later on, sold to Sameer Trivedi and transferred the said car in his name. Investigation revealed that on 04.03.2014 R.N. Meena purchased this car in the name of his servant Mansukhbhai Badeja from Shri Sameer Trivedi used by R.N.Meena and family members at Jaipur. Not Intimated to the Deptt.
03 A new Honda CBR Bike registration no. RJ-20-ST-3444 in the name of (Smt. Rameshwari Rupranarayan Meena W/o R.N.Meena) Not Intimated to the Deptt.
105. He has, therefore, urged that considering the same, it cannot be said the appellants-accused have not been benefited either-way. Also, considering the fact that the aforesaid case filed by the CBI is still subjudiced, this Court has restrained itself from observing or expressing any opinion in that regard. CONCLUSION :
106. On the overall analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the entire evidence on record as well as considering the provisions under Sections 420, 120B and 24 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court while convicting the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 420 read with Page 139 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper, and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial court. The trial court is completely justified in convicting the appellants-accused of the charges levelled against them.
107. In above view of the matter, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court, and hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the present appeals are hereby dismissed. Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.) /MOINUDDIN
108. After the pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate Mr.Trivedi prays for six weeks' time on behalf of the appellants-accused to surrender, so as to enable them to approach the Supreme Court.
Page 140 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/911/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
109. The request made by learned advocate Mr.Trivedi appearing for the appellants-accused appears to be reasonable and is acceded to. The appellants-accused are granted six weeks' time from today to surrender.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.) /MOINUDDIN Page 141 of 141 Uploaded by M.A. SAIYED(HC00172) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 21:41:45 IST 2025