Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

New Bombay Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 November, 2014

                  IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
            ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(CENTRAL): DELHI


Criminal Revision No.146/14
In the matter of:­


1.    New Bombay Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd, 
      (Now MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.),
      Having its Registered Office at: 
      B­2/2, MIDC Palkhed Road,
      Dindori, Nashik­ 422202.
      Through Mr. Champshi M. Shah
      Director.

2.    Mr. Champshi M. Shah,
      S/o Late Sh. Manek G. K. Shah,
      R/o Jayesh A Building, Flat No. 14,
      R. B. Mehta Road, Ghatkopar,
      Bombay - 400077.                           ....Petitioners

      Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation,
(Through the In­charge,
CBI/SIU/IX, CBI Headquarters,
Block­4,CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi­ 110003.                           ....Respondent


Date of Institution:     29.10.2014
Date of Judgment:        07.11.2014


                                        1
                                      J U D G M E N T

Present revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 06.09.2014 passed by learned Trial Court in case no. RC­2(E)/96.

Vide impugned order dated 06.09.2014, learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Section 311 CrPC filed by petitioners herein for recalling of PW12 Sh. R. K. Nair for further cross­examination.

2. Trial Court record reveals that accused persons­petitioners have been facing trial for the offences under Section 120­B read with Section 468, 471, 420 IPC, 468 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.

3. Main accusation levelled against the accused - petitioner is that in pursuance of conspiracy arrived at between them, they forged Registration Cum Membership Certificate (RCMC) issued by Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC), Bombay by forging words "M.S. Bright Bars and Shaftings", so as to show that it had been issued for "M.S. Bars and Shaftings". The forgery is said to have been committed with a view to obtain imprest license by cheating Joint Commissioner of Imports and Exports, Ahmedabad. The forged certificate is also said to have been used as genuine and thereby, the petitioners are alleged to have cheated the Joint Commissioner of Imports and Exports by deceiving the amount imprest license.

Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the statement of PW12, 2 sought to be further cross examined by recalling him, wherein he stated that M.S. Bright Bars and Shaftings are engineering items and further that M.S. Bars and prime steel are non engineering items. Learned counsel submits that the counsel earlier engaged by the accused - petitioner could not cross examine PW12 on the aforesaid aspect stated by PW12 and that he is to be cross examined to bring on record as to whether M.S. Bars are or not engineering item.

On the other hand, Learned P.P. has rightly submitted that PW12 was examined on 18.05.2013; that ample opportunity was provided to the accused to cross examine and accordingly, he was thoroughly cross examined. Therefore, there is no ground to recall PW12 for further cross examination simply because accused have engaged other counsel.

4. On the point, whether M.S. Bars & Shafting was or was not non­ engineering item during the relevant period i.e. 1988­89, accused - petitioners would be able to lead defence evidence, if they so desire. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that let the petitioners be given liberty to call and examine in defence, officer / officials from the office of Engineering Export Promotion Council, to prove if M.S. Bars & Shaftings was or was not an engineering item during the relevant period. Learned P.P. does not oppose this submission put forth by learned counsel for petitioners.

5. In the given facts and circumstances, this revision petition is disposed of 3 while upholding the impugned order dt.06.09.2014, passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate while observing that at the appropriate stage, petitioners shall be at liberty to summon in defence, if they so desire, officer/ official from Engineering Export Promotion Council, so as to lead evidence on the point if M.S. Bars & Shafting was or was not an engineering item during the relevant period i.e. year 1988­89, as per records of the office.

Trial Court record be returned. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in Open Court 
on 07.11.2014                                        (Narinder Kumar )
                                         Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
                                                               Delhi.




                                          4