Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . M/S. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. on 12 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02 (NORTH) DELHI
Unique Case ID : 02401R0000051979
CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors.
U/s. 120B IPC r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and Sec. 5 of Imports & Exports
(Control) Act, 1947.
RC No. 3/77
Date of institution: 16.05.1979
Judgment Reserved on: 26.04.2011
Date of Judgment: 12.05.2011
JUDGMENT
a) Serial No. of the case 02401R0000051979
b) Date of commission Around 23.11.74 to March, 1975
of the offence
c) Name of the complainant T.K. Narain, Deputy Controller of
Imports & Exports
d) Name of the accused person, 1. M/s Krampe Hydraulic (India) No. and his parentage and 105, Church Gate Chambers, 5 Marine address. Lines, Bomaby20, Factory No.11, Kotkar Industrial Estate, Bombay.
2. Sh. B.N. Mehta @ Babu Bhai Niyal Chand Mehta S/o Sh. Niyal Chand, partner of M/s Krampe Hydraulic (India) (Now expired).
3. Sh. Mahender Magan Lal Shah @ M.M. Shah, claimed to be Manager of M/s Krampe Hydraulic (India), Bombay (Now expired).
RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 1 of 14
1. 4. M/s Kromex International No. 2686, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
5. Sh. Bhupinder Singh Anand, S/o Sardar Dr. Ratan Singh Anand, Manger, M/s Kromex International, 2686, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
6. Sardar Kuldeep Singh, S/o Sardar Inder Singh, R/o A70/A, Phase2 DDA Flat, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi. (Now expired).
7. Sardar Narender Singh Chadha, Director of M/s Chadha Motor Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2639 Naya Bazar, Delhi06.
e) Offence complained or U/s. 120B IPC r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC
proved and Sec. 5 of Imports & Exports
(Control) Act, 1947.
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
g) The final order Accused no. 1, 4, 5 and 7 are acquitted
h) Date of such order 12/05/11
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. This is a complaint case. The complaint has been filed by Sh. T.K. Narain, Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Office of Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Bombay (JCCI & E). The complaint case is regarding offence u/s. 120B IPC r/w 420 IPC and Sec.5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 as well as substantive offences u/s. 420/471/468 IPC and Sec.5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The complaint was filed against seven accused persons. RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 2 of 14
2. Allegations are that accused No.1 firm M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) had made an application on 23.11.74 seeking nomination of replenishment licence of registered exporter M/s. Hercules Traders, Bombay. Accused No.3 M.M. Shah had approached M/s. Hercules Trader for this nomination and prepared the proforma application, photostat of import licence etc. All these were forwarded to office of JCCI&E Bombay by M/s. Hercules Traders for issuance of replenishment licence in favour of M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India), Bombay. Accused No.2 B.N. Mehta had signed the proforma application as partner of accused No.1 firm. With the application, there were photostat copies of licence No. 1792193 dt. 5.3.74 and 1387899 dt. 17.6.74 which were in the name of accused No.1. List of items to be imported were also there. One of the end products of the unit was mentioned as "Diesel Engine & Parts" in the copy of licence No. 1387899. It is stated that as per policy, registered exporters were issued replenishment licences and nomination was also allowed in favour of another manufacturer(s) for any product in the same 'category' or 'product group'. It is mentioned that registered exporter Hercules Traders had exported above noted parts. Therefore, replenishment licence could be issued for product of that category or product group. The allegations are that the accused No.1 firm fabricated the words "Diesel Engine and Parts" on photostat copy of their licence so RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 3 of 14 that the replenishment licence could be issued in their favour. Induced by these misrepresentations and fabrication, the licensing authority issued licence No. 2715138 dt. 13.2.75 for Rs.54,499/.
3. On or about 15.10.75 accused No.1 firm and accused No.4 firm M/s. Kromex International, New Delhi made an application for issue of letter of authority in favour of accused No.4 in respect of above noted licence. They also requested for changing the port of registration from Bombay to New Delhi. Letter of authority was issued and port of registration was also changed.
4. Similarly, on 29.1.75 the accused No.1 firm had made an application seeking nomination of replenishment licence of registered owner of M/s. Reliable Engg. House, Bombay. M/s. Reliable Engg.
House forwarded the application and all the papers to the concerned office. In the photostat copy of licence No. 1387899 the end product of SSI unit was mentioned as "Diesel Engine & Parts". M/s. Reliable Engg. House had exported diesel engine parts. However, accused NO.1 was not manufacturing diesel engine and parts and, therefore, was not eligible for nomination of license. Rather accused No.1 was engaged in manufacture of hydraulic press, pumps and its parts. It is alleged that accused No.1 dishonestly used forged photocopies of license No. 1387899 and induced the licensing authority to accept the nomination and issued license no. RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 4 of 14 2717254 for Rs.69,178/. Similarly, again accused No.1 applied to JCCI & E Bombay for issue of letter of authority in favour of M/s. Kromex International and also to amend the port of registration which was allowed.
5. It is further alleged that in the import license No. 2715138 seven items were allowed to be imported. The first item was "Thin walled bearings". However, the words "/all sizes/" were unauthorisedly added. It is also alleged that in the import licence no. 2717254 there was a list of items which could be imported. It is alleged that this list was substituted dishonestly. The substituted list also contained the forged signature of the Controller. Similarly, it is also alleged that in the import licence no. 2716177 eight items could be imported. In this also the words "/all sizes/"
were unauthorisedly or dishonestly added. It is further alleged that value restrictions against the item "thin walled bearings" was deleted dishonestly to overcome restriction of value in this matter accused No.1 was able to import thin walled bearings for the full value of the license.
6. It is further the case of the prosecution that on or about 1.1.76 accused No.4 applied to Punjab National Bank, Kashmere Gate for opening a letter of credit for Rs.7,50,000/ for importing thin walled bearings for diesel engine. There was one more license for Rs.7,54,720/.
7. Three consignments were imported and value was adjusted against RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 5 of 14 the said four licenses. Accused No.5 Bhupender Singh Anand was Manager of accused No.4. Accused No.5 got prepared GR No. 563 dt. 23.3.76 through accused No.6 Sardar Kuldeep Singh. Further GRs were got prepared with respect to other consignments. It is also alleged that accused No.7 Narender Singh Chadha also got prepared one GR. Further freight charges were shown to have been paid but there was no receipt issued for receiving the freight charges.
8. Thus it is alleged that all the accused have committed offences as noted in the beginning. All the accused were summoned vide order dt. 16.5.1979 i.e. on the same day on which the complaint was presented.
9. After appearance of all the seven accused, the complainant led pre charge evidence. The complainant had examined as many as 65 witnesses. It may be mentioned that earlier prosecution was being conducted by CBI but later on office of Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has been conducting the prosecution.
10. Charge was framed on 4.7.01 against the five accused persons as accused No.3 and 6 had expired. Charge was framed for the offences punishable u/s. 120B IPC r/w. Sec.420 IPC and Sec.5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act; also for offence punishable u/s. 468 IPC r/w. Sec. 120B IPC and Sec. 5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act; also for offence punishable u/s. 471 IPC r/w. 120B IPC and Sec.5 of Imports & RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 6 of 14 Exports (Control) Act; and for offence punisable u/s. 420 IPC r/w. 120B IPC and Sec. 5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act. All the five accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused persons also recalled all the witnesses for crossexamination after the charge.
11. In after charge evidence only PW6 Balbir Thaper, PW7 P.L. Lotika, PW8 A.H. Shaikh, PW9 S.P. Shirshat, PW11 Om Prakash Chopra, PW13 B.C. Day, PW14 Ashok Kumar Anand, PW15 Darshan Singh Dutta, PW17 S.Mohinder Singh and PW18 B.L. Malhotra appeared for further crossexamination. The complainant did not examine any other witness.
12. During pendency accused No.2 B.N. Mehta also expired. Statements of accused Bhupinder Singh Anand/A5 and accused Narender Singh Chadha/A7 were recorded. They did not lead any defence evidence. The other two accused are firms.
13. I have heard Sh. Atul Bhardwaj Ld. Counsel for complainant. I have also heard Sh. Gurdyal Singh and Sh. K.K.Patra, Ld. Counsels for the accused persons. I have perused the record.
14. As noted herein before 65 witnesses were examined in precharge evidence. However, only 10 of them appeared for further cross examination after the charge. It was already decided at the time of statement of accused that evidence of only these later witnesses will be RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 7 of 14 considered. Therefore, in the judgment also I am discussing testimonies only of these witnesses.
15. PW6 deposed that in 1976 he was posted in Punjab National Bank, Kashmere Gate branch. On 25.2.1976 some documents were retired by the party vide bill control sheet Ex.PW6/A. This control sheet was prepared by PW6. He had also prepared control sheet dt. 12.2.76 which is Ex.PW6/B. Some documents were received by the party vide endorsement Ex.PW6/C. PW6 identified signature of accused Bhupinder Singh thereon. He deposed that he had received receipt memo dt. 18.5.1978. Through this memo some documents were detained but were seized by the police from PW6. The memo is Ex.PW6/D. Ex.PW6/E is Form A which was prepared by PW6 and dt. 27.4.76 it was also signed by PW5. He also deposed about endorsement which is Ex.PW6/F on the copy of the license. The endorsement was in his hand which was prepared regarding utilisation of Foreign Exchange. There was no cross examination in precharge evidence. In crossexamination after the charge, PW6 deposed that he does not remember regarding documents which were produced during investigation.
16. PW7 deposed that in 1974 he was posted as stenotypist in the office of JCCI&E. He deposed that the file after completing the process and by annexing C form is given to him for typing. He also used to check RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 8 of 14 the same. The officer concerned signed the same. He also explained the procedure of amendment. He deposed, after seeing the counterfoil of the licence, that he had typed licence No. 1387899. He has also signed it which is Ex.PW7/A. He also identified signature of controller J.J. Kenney. He deposed that the license was prepared on the basis of C form which was in the handwriting of R.C. Gupta which is Ex.PW7/B. After seeing photocopy Mark 2/7 he stated that the words "Diesel Engine & Parts" were written additionally which were not there in the counterfoil. Similarly, after seeing Mark 7/1 and 2 he stated that "Diesel Engine & Parts" were written additionally which were not there in counterfoil Mark 7/3. He had also seen the counterfoil of license No. 1851931 and deposed that it was typed by him. He had made endorsement which is Ex.PW7/C and signed by him. In crossexamination in precharge evidence he stated that his statement was not recorded by the police but once a statement was recorded in Bombay. He deposed that he was not having any knowledge about manufacturing etc. of machines. In further cross examination after charge he stated that it was also the duty of the officer/dealing hand to see whether amendment had been done or not.
17. PW8 deposed that in 1975 he was working as Typist with JCCI&E. He had typed document Ex.PW4/C and D. He had typed the list also bearing his signature on the back side and same is Ex.PW8/A. RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 9 of 14 Similarly, he had typed Ex.PW4/E and F. He deposed that the words "All Sizes" have not been typed by him. In Crossexamination he stated that he was the only typist and there was only one typewriter in the said office and nobody else used to type letters. In further crossexamination in after charge evidence, he stated that there may be 10/15 typewriters. He also stated that other persons might work in place of any other if he is on leave.
18. PW9 deposed that he had made endorsement Ex.PW9/A on the back side of the licence. He explained the procedure regarding amendment. In crossexamination he stated that police had met him only once. In further crossexamination in after charge evidence he denied that he was deposing at the instance of CBI.
19. PW11 deposed that in 1974 he was Manager with M/s New Safe Carriers East and West Pvt. Ltd. One Mr. Vijay Kochar was looking after work of Bombay office. He deposed that on 24.4.76 they received 9 packages of diesel engine parts for transport from Delhi to Bombay, challan is Ex.PW11/A. The goods were sent to Bombay on 26.4.76 as reflected in challan Ex.PW11/B. He deposed that documents were given to CBI vide Ex.PW11/C. In crossexamination he stated that he cannot tell about all the transactions without seeing the record.
20. PW13 deposed that he was Deputy Director at SISI in Bombay. RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 10 of 14 Their function was to give technical advise to small scale industrialists. He deposed that in June, 1978 he had inspected factory of Crempy Hydrolic (as typed in the evidence) at Bombay alongwith officers of CBI. His report is Ex.PW13/A. He was not crossexamined in precharge evidence stage. In crossexamination in after charge evidence he stated that there was only oral instructions for inspection. He stated that some persons had come from Delhi whose names he did not remember.
21. PW14 deposed that in August 1972, he was working in cargo section of Air India in import section. He explained the procedure for clearing of consignments received from outside India. He deposed that one letter Ex.PW14/A was received in their office as per entry Ex.PW14/B, 15 packages of bearings were received from Frankfurt on 22.2.76 and delivery was handed over to one B.S Anand. As per entry Ex.PW14/C, 17 packages containing Welled bearings were received and handed over to B.S. Negi. In crossexamination he stated that he could not say at what time the entries were made. In further crossexamination in after charge evidence he stated that he did not remember the facts (because considerable time had elapsed).
22. PW15 deposed that he was working as Traffic Assistant in May, 1973 to July, 1976. He deposed about arrival of 14 packages of Auto bearings from Kuwait in favour of M/s Cromax International (as typed in RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 11 of 14 evidence) vide entry Ex.PW15/A. Similarly, after seeing entry Ex.PW15/B he told that 7 packages of bearings were received from Kuwait in favour of Cromax International. He prepared the delivery order and gave it to B.S. Anand. Further vide entry Ex.PW15/C arrival of one package of auto bearing from Kuwait is reflected. Delivery of this was also given to B.S. Anand. In crossexamination it has come that there is no signature of the person who took the delivery or Ex.PW15/C. In further crossexamination he stated that the entries Ex.PW15/A and B are not in his handwriting.
23. PW17 deposed that he was partner of M/s Bombay Road Corporation in 1970. The firm was desolved in 1976 vide Deed Ex.PW17/A. He had given some documents to the CBI vide receipt Ex.PW17/B. He also prove some other documents. In crossexamination he stated that he was a sleeping partner.
24. PW18 produced original of bills of entry. In crossexamination he stated that he had no personal knowledge.
25. Statement of accused B.S Anand and N.S. Chadha were recorded u/s. 313 Cr.PC. Accused B.S. Anand expressed his ignorance about many circumstances appearing in evidence. He stated that he is innocent and has not done anything wrong. Similar is the statement of accused N.S. Chadha.
RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 12 of 14
26. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the accused are guilty and be punished as per law. On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for the accused submitted that there is no evidence against any of the accused.
27. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the present case was not just a trial but an ordeal for the accused persons. They have been facing this case since 1979 and it was only on today that the judgment is being passed. As can be seen from the record, the prosecution firstly examined 65 witnesses in precharge evidence. After framing of charge, it could produce only 09 out of 65 witnesses for further crossexamination. To add to it, it was found at the stage of final arguments that the documents of the case are missing. It so happened that earlier the prosecution was being conducted by the CBI. Later on the prosecution was being conducted by complainant itself i.e Office of DGFT. The documents were with the CBI. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for DGFT that documents were not returned by the CBI whereas Ld. APP for CBI had appeared and informed that all the documents were returned. Some copies of correspondences were also placed on record. Ld. Counsel for DGFT/complainant had reiterated that documents were not returned by the CBI. Thus, even the documents are not traceable.
28. As only very few witnesses turned up in after charge evidence, only their testimonies could be considered. From the perusal of their RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 13 of 14 testimonies it is amply clear that prosecution has not been able to prove the charge. Rather it should be said that prosecution could never prove the charge from the testimonies of those few witnesses. Some of the witnesses have said that accused Bhupinder Singh Anand had got prepared GRs. This only raises slight suspicion which is of no value or help to the prosecution. Judicial conscience can never be satisfied in view of the fact that out of 65 witnesses only 09 had turned up for further crossexamination. It will be against the well settled legal principles if any conclusion of guilt is drawn in the present facts and circumstances. Even the documents are not available for perusal. It will be unfair to take any view against the accused.
29. This ordeal must end for the accused persons. Consequently, accused B.S. Anand and N.S. Chadha are hereby acquitted. Accused firms M/s Krampe Hydraulic (India) and M/s Kromex International are also acquitted. However, the bail bonds already furnished by accused B.S. Anand and N.S. Chadha are accepted further for the purpose of S. 437A Cr.PC at the request of both the accused. These bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months.
30. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court (SANJAY BANSAL)
today on 12.05.2011 Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate02/North/Delhi
RC No.3/77 CBI Vs. M/s. Krampe Hydraulic (India) & Ors. Page 14 of 14