Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Judiciary/ Judgment / Ito vs . M/S Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / Cc ... on 1 February, 2010

                                                                              1


            IN THE COURT OF SH. DIG VINAY SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
                   MAGISTRATE(SPL. ACTS):CENTRAL:TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

In re: 
ITO                                                                                                .....COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S HANDGAR INDEXPORT (P) LTD                                                                      ........ACCUSED
CASE NO. 82/4
U/S 276 C (1), 277 & 278 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND SECTION 193/196 OF
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
DATE OF RESERVATION OF JUDGMENT:                                                                   21.01.2010
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT:                                                                 01.02.2010
                                                                 JUDGEMENT

(a) The serial no. of the case :                                                  02401R0000791987

(b) The date of commission of offence :                                           28.06.1984
(c) The name of complainant :                                                     Sh.   Sunil   Chopra,   Inspecting   Assistant  
                                                                                  Commissioner   of   Income­tax(Asstt),Range­
                                                                                  XV, New Delhi
(d) The name, parentage, residence  of accused:                                   (1)       M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd.
                                                                                            2186­2187, Laxmi Rani Dawar 
                                                                                            Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
                                                                                     (2)    Krishan Kumar (deceased)
                                                                                            M­86, Greater Kailash­I, New Delhi
                                                                                   (3)      Jagdish M.Khera
                                                                                            5/27, Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi


                                                                                  (4)        Jatinder Singh,

Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 1 of 18 /e 2 H­459, New Rajinder Bagar, New Delhi (5) Smt. Jaswant Kaur, (deceased) 889/IT­10, Gali Raja Sawan Bazaar Mai Saiwan, Amritsar (6) Smt. Manorama Devi (deceased) M/86, Greater Kailash­I, New Delhi (7) Parveen Kumar R/o­14­B/24, Dev Nagar, New Delhi (8) Harish Chander S/o Sh. H.R. Kochhar, R/o B­1/249, Janakpuri, New Delhi

e) The offence complained of/ proved : U/s 276 C(1),277 & 278 of the Income Tax Act,1961 & section 193/196 of the Indian Penal Code

(f) The plea of accused : Acquitted

(g) The final order : 01.02.2010

(h) The date of such order : 01.02.2010 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:­ This is a complaint case filed by the Income Tax Officer against the Eight accused named above. Before proceeding further let it be mentioned that the accused No 2, 3 and 6 expired during the pendency of proceedings and the proceedings against them were declared Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 2 of 18 /e 3 abated on different dates, therefore, the present judgment is directed against the remaining five accused, that is, accused No 1, 3, 4, 7 and the accused No 8 only.

1. Briefly stated the facts are, that the present complaint was filed against the accused for offences under section 276C (1), 277 and 278 of The Income Tax Act 1961, as also the offences under section 193 and 196 of the Indian penal code. The relevant assessment year is 1983­84 and, it is alleged that the accused No 2 to 6 were directors of the accused No 1 company. During the accounting period ending on 30th of June 1982, assessment year 1983­1984 the accused company was engaged in the business of export of ready­made garments and handicrafts. The Return of the income of the company for the relevant year was filed on 28 June 1983. In the Return filed, a loss of Rs 6,07,930 was reflected. The said Return of income comprised of a current loss of Rs 2,27,921 and unabsorbed brought forward loss of Rs 2,95,346. The verification of the income tax Return was signed by the accused No 2 who was one of the directors at the relevant time. The Return was also accompanied by the profit and loss account of the company along with balance sheet. Those documents were signed by the accused No 2 and accused No

3. In the Return filed a sum of Rs 26,41,184 was claimed to have been spent on fabrication and processing charges and the said amount was debited to the profit of the company. The fabrication and processing charges were mainly on account of tailoring, embroidery and dying charges. Assessment proceedings were initiated by the income tax authorities and accordingly notices were issued. A specific questionnaire was issued to the accused company to furnish certain details/information. On examination of the trading details, supplied by the company along with other details and information furnished on behalf of the company, the assessing officer felt that the expenditure Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 3 of 18 /e 4 claimed by the company on fabrication and processing was excessive. Thereafter the accused company was directed to file a complete list of the fabricators, including their names and addresses, along with the quantum of payments claimed to have been made to them. A list of 27 such parties, to whom payment in excess of Rs 10,000 was made by the company, was supplied to the income tax authorities. The total amount claimed to have been paid to them was approximately Rs 25,44,059. The copies of accounts of those 27 parties, indicating the mode of payments to them and as recorded in the books of account of the accused company, were also furnished on behalf of the accused company. The income tax authorities issued summons to those 27 parties under section 131 of The Income Tax Act through registered post. Out of those 27 parties, 16 parties could not be served and their notices were received back, with remarks 'left without address', 'refused', 'no such person exist' etc. Thereafter the accused company was directed to produce those 27 parties but none of them could be produced by the accused company. Ultimately the accused company expressed its inability to produce the parties. It is claimed in the complaint that one of the parties M/s Design Centre to whom certain processing charges to the extent of Rs 44,640 were claimed to have been paid did not exist at that given address. Out of the remaining 11 parties, from total 27 parties, 7 parties furnished copy of account of accused company in their books of accounts and out of them five parties were examined on test check basis by the income tax authorities. The proprietor of one such party appeared and made a statement that the accused company used to charge him cash amount equal to Rs 1 per piece of garment tailored by him. From the said statement it transpired that the payments made by the accused company to the fabricators, in respect of fabrication and processing charges, as appearing Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 4 of 18 /e 5 in its books of accounts were not the same as paid to the fabricators, because a part of the said payment was siphoned back to the accused company on the basis of oral arrangement with the fabricators. The matter was further investigated and attempts were made to summon those parties which could not be served earlier. The proprietor of one more firm appeared, whose statement was recorded by the income tax authorities and who stated that the accused company used to get over­billing done and the difference in the bill amount and the actual tailoring charges used to be recovered back on behalf of the accused company by way of cash from him after the payment was made to him by cheque. It was also stated that sometimes the accused company used to accept Bearer cheques from him which were got encashed by it through its employees. Certain discrete inquiries were made by the income tax authorities which revealed that accused No 7 encashed certain cheques issued by the said proprietor. The accused No 7 was an employee of the accused company. It is also claimed that at times the accused company used to issue the cheques in respect of fabrication charges in favour of the fabricators and those cheques were encashed by the company through accused No 7. The income tax authorities came to know about two such cheques in the books of account of the accused company which were in the name of M/s Hindustan traders and M/s U.K. enterprises. The income tax authorities also recorded the statement of the accused No 7 who admitted his signatures on the reverse of the cheques and also admitted that he used to encash cheques for the company. The accused No 7 is claimed to have encashed five such cheques in such manner. Against accused No 7 it is also claimed that he encashed one cheque of Rs 11,500 which was purportedly issued by M/S Rainbow Garments but the proprietor of the said firm stated that he does not know the accused No 7. So far as the Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 5 of 18 /e 6 accused No 8 is concerned, it is the case of the complainant, that during the assessment proceedings the affidavit of this accused No 8 was filed before the assessing officer. To verify the authenticity of the affidavit, the accused No 8 was called, and in his statement the accused No 8 stated that he did not go through the contents of the affidavit before signing it and that he never appeared before the Oath commissioner and, signed the affidavit on the asking of son of accused No 4. He claimed that the cheque bearing No 4948354 for Rs 5000 was never received or encashed by him. The assessing officer also recorded statements of other persons to prove that the expenditure claimed by the accused company was untrue.

2. On these allegations the present complaint was filed for the offences under section 276C (1), 277 and section 278 of The Income Tax Act 1961 and also section 193 and 196 of the Indian penal code.

3. My learned predecessor court summoned the accused vide order dated 15th of January 1987 for the above­mentioned offences. Thereafter pre­charge evidence was recorded against the accused persons and charges were framed against the accused No 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. The charges were framed on 11th of April 2001. It would be pertinent to mention here that my learned predecessor court vide its order dated 12 of March 2001 ordered that charges against the accused be framed only for the offences under section 276 C (1), 277 and section 278 of The Income Tax Act and no charges were ordered to be framed under section 193 and 196 of Indian penal code. The said order was never Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 6 of 18 /e 7 challenged and it has attained finality. Needless to say that the present judgment confines to the charges framed against the accused.

4. The material parts of Sections 276C and 277 of the Act read as follows:

"276C. Willful attempt to evade tax etc. ­ (1) If a person willfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable, ........................."
" (2) If a person willfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other provision of, this Act, be punishable with ......

...............".

"Explanation ......................."

5. "277. False statement in verification etc. ­ If a person makes a statement in any verification under this Act or under any rule made there under or delivers an account or statement which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable,..................."

6. In support of its case the prosecution examined total five witnesses namely PW 1 Sunil Chopra, PW 2 Smt. Vanita Chopra , PW 3 Ramesh Kakkar , PW­4 S.P.Aggarwal and PW­5 Vinay Kapoor.

Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 7 of 18 /e 8

7. PW 1 Sunil Chopra was the concerned inspecting assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at the relevant time and the accused company was one of his assessee. When he took over from the previous inspecting assessing officer he found that the proposal had already been made by earlier assessing officer to the Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking authorization to launch prosecution against the accused company. The assessment of the accused company was already completed by the previous assessing officer vide order dated 27th March 1986. The previous assessing officer had already initiated penalty proceedings against the accused company under section 271 (1) C of the Income Tax Act. This witness made a request to the C. F. S. L. seeking opinion on the signatures of accused No 7 appearing on the backside of cheques, which were allegedly encashed by him. This witness proved his request letters Exhibit PW 1/1, Ex 1/2 , and Exhibit PW 1/3. He also proved the letter from the C. F. S. L. through which he received the report of the F. S. L. as Exhibit PW 1/4. The report has not been proved in this case in accordance with law and the F. S. L. report was only marked as Mark A in the testimony of this witness. The witness also proved the authorization to launch prosecution against the accused as Exhibit PW 1/5 and his complaint Exhibit PW 1/6. The witness is, therefore, more or less a formal witness and in the cross­examination this witness admitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated 1st Jun 1992, relating to the assessment year in question regarding the accused company, dismissed the appeal against the order of remand back of the assessment proceedings, by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The witness admitted that the Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 8 of 18 /e 9 original affidavit against accused No 8 was not filed on the record of the present case and it was kept in the records of the income tax authorities only.

8. PW 2 Smt. Vanita Chopra, is the concerned assessing officer who assessed the accused company at the relevant time. She proved the Return filed by the accused company as Exhibit PW 2/1 along with the documents bearing signatures of the accused No 2. She also proved the notice issued by her to the accused company under section 143(2) of The Income Tax Act as Exhibit PW 2/2, the questionnaire sent to the accused company Exhibit PW 2/3. This witness also deposed that the accused company was doing business of fabrication and sale including export of ready­made garments and that she conducted inquiries against the claim of fabrication charges from the parties to whom the payment for fabrication expenses were allegedly made by the company, on the basis of the list of fabricators provided by the accused company. She deposed that the inquiries revealed that the assessee company was claiming fictitious expenses and was inflating expenses claimed as fabrication charges. It is deposed that it was found by her on the basis of statements recorded by her, of some of the fabricators who stated that the directors of the accused company were taking some money back by way of cash from the fabricators after making payment to them through cheque. The witness also deposed that the modus operandi of the accused company, for taking back some of the payments, was that some cheques were issued by the accused company to the fabricators which were bearer cheques and which were encashed by the employee of the accused company i.e. accused No 7, who encashed the cheques by signing behind the cheques while presenting the cheques to the bank for encashment. One such cheque is Exhibit PW 1. The witness Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 9 of 18 /e 10 also deposed that after conducting inquiries she made the assessment order Exhibit PW 2 against the accused company and that, the proprietors of few firms admitted before her that the accused company was indulging in over­billing for fabrication charges and the excess amount of fabrication charges used to be recovered from the fabricators by the accused company by way of cash. The witness also deposed that vide letter dated 5th of March 1991 the assessing officer submitted a report Exhibit PW 3. The witness was subjected to cross­examination by the accused in which the witness admitted that the payments were not made directly to any of the accused directors of the company and as per the statement of fabricators, accused No 2 and 3 used to ask the fabricators to do the over­billing.

9. This part of the testimony of this witness is barred by the principles of hearsay as none of those fabricators who allegedly made any such statement has been examined by the complainant in its favour. The witness also deposed that the cheques which were bearer cheques were taken by the accused No 7 to the fabricators who used to withdraw the money himself from the bank. The witness specifically admitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the assessment order and the matter was remanded back for the assessment. The witness in the next breath stated that the assessment order was not set aside but in fact remand report was sought which was submitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax. The witness also specifically admitted that after submission of the remand report, no final order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is on the file. The witness Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 10 of 18 /e 11 also admitted that the fabricators who were allegedly examined by her during assessment proceedings were named as witnesses in the complaint.

10. It would be pertinent to mention here that this witness did not prove any of the statement of any of the fabricators recorded during the assessment proceedings, which even otherwise would have been not admissible, in absence of examination of fabricators. Therefore, the deposition of this witness as to what was stated by the fabricators before her is barred by the principles of hearsay, in absence of examination of those persons who made such a statement against the directors of the accused company or the accused company.

11. The complainant also examined, PW 3 Ramesh Kakkar who deposed, that during the assessment proceedings, the accused No 7 agreed that the signatures on the backside of certain cheques were his signatures and he further agreed that he used to encash cheques and gave the money to the company. The witness also deposed that during the course of assessment proceedings it was found that fabrication charges claimed by the accused company were bogus and excessive. He deposed that the modus operandi of the party was that it used to issue bearer cheques to its fabricators and get them encashed through one of its own employee that is accused No 7.

12. This witness nowhere deposed as to on what basis he makes such a deposition and whether in his presence any of the fabricators made such a statement or whether the accused No 7 in his personal presence made such a confession. Even Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 11 of 18 /e 12 otherwise had any such statement made in presence of this witness by the fabricators, the same would have been barred by the principles of hearsay in absence of examination of those fabricators. Similarly the admission/confession of accused No 7 before the authorities becomes inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act. This witness also did not prove any of the statements made by any of the fabricators during the assessment proceedings nor he proved any of the cheques which as per this witness bear signatures of the accused No 7.

13. Complainant also examined, PW 4 who was a chartered accountant of the accused company and who did not support the case of the complainant at all and deposed that he does not know whether any case under The Income Tax Act was made out against the company, or not. Despite the witness turning hostile to the case of the complainant, the complainant did not thought it proper to cross­examine this witness to elicit any further facts in favour of the complainant.

14. Lastly, the complainant also examined PW 5 Vinay Kapoor, Manager from Canara bank who deposed that the cheques Exhibit PW 5/A1 to Exhibit PW 5/A9 were issued by Canara bank Parliament Street New Delhi. But this witness stated that he does not know anything about this case. Accordingly, even this witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution but despite this witness turning hostile to the case of complainant, the complainant did not thought it proper to cross­examine this witness to elicit any facts in favour of the complainant. Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 12 of 18 /e 13

15. After conclusion of the evidence of the complainant, the incriminating evidence was put to the accused In their examination under section 313 read with section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It would be also pertinent to mention here that the statement of accused No 3, 4 and accused No 7 was recorded on 10th of March 2005 but the statement of accused No 8 was not recorded. It is recorded in the ordersheet dated 21.07.2005 that there is no incriminating evidence against this accused and his statement was dispensed with. The statement of AR of the accused No 1 company was also recorded on 21.01.2010 through accused no. 4 Jatinder Singh.

16. The accused No 3 in his statement admitted that he was a director of the accused company at the relevant time but he claimed that he was not in charge of or responsible for the day­to­day affairs of the company. He admitted that the accused company was doing the business of ready­made garments which included fabrication and export of ready­made garments but he stated that the assessment proceedings conducted by the income tax department was incomplete and based on incomplete facts. The accused No 3 also stated that the fabricators were not examined in the court and that if any cheque was encashed by the accused No 7 , it was encashed by him for the fabricators and not for the accused company or any of its directors. The accused also claimed, that had the fabricators been examined in the court they would not have supported the claim of the complainant. He also claimed that the Commissioner of Income Tax appeal remanded the matter back for fresh report which was never done. It is also claimed that as on date no penalty has been imposed on the accused company and even the case was not fit for imposition of any penalty.

Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 13 of 18 /e 14

17. Similarly the accused No 4 and AR of accused company denied the incriminating evidence against him on the same grounds.

18. Similarly the accused No 7 denied the incriminating evidence against him and claimed that he was an employee of the company and sometimes the fabricators used to give him the cheques and after encashing the same he used to hand over the money to the fabricators and no money was paid to the company or its directors. He stated that the allegations appearing that the money was being paid to the company or its directors are absolutely false.

19. None of the accused led any defence evidence in their favour.

20. I have heard learned counsels for the accused as well as Learned Counsel for the complainant, and have perused the record.

21. As is clear from the above facts the whole case of the complainant was based upon the fact that some of the fabricators to whom, allegedly, certain payments were made were non­existent. In this connection, the least which was expected from the complainant was, to have proved those notices or those registered envelopes which were received back undelivered from the addresses of fabricators allegedly supplied by the accused company to the income tax authorities. But unfortunately not even a single notice or single registered envelop, which has been received back undelivered, with the report that the addressee does not exist at the address, has been proved on record. There is not even a single report by any of the income tax employee, on the notices, to reveal that as to which income tax employee visited the address and Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 14 of 18 /e 15 found that the fabricators did not exist at the given address. Admittedly PW 1, 2 or 3 did not personally visit any of the addresses of the fabricators nor they have deposed any such fact that they personally went to any of the addresses to find out that the fabricators did not exist. The person who visited any such address and gave the report is not examined.

22. Despite the fact that the fabricators were named in the list of witnesses, none of them has been examined by the complainant in support of its case to prove the fact that the claim made by the accused company in the income tax was false in any manner. Although the complainant claims that those fabricators were examined by the assessing officer during assessment proceedings but none of them were examined in the court. The examination of those fabricators before the assessing officer and, whatever those fabricators stated before the assessing officers, is not admissible ipso facto, being barred by the principles of hearsay evidence, in the absence of examination of those fabricators in the courts.

23. Learned Counsel for the complainant claimed that statements of those fabricators were recorded by the assessing officer during assessment proceedings. But this fact by itself is insufficient since the statements given by the fabricators to the assessing officer during assessment proceedings are not per se admissible in evidence. At the most those statements could have been used for contradicting or confronting the witnesses had they been examined in the court. The complainant ought to have examined those fabricators in the court in order to prove their statements. In Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 15 of 18 /e 16 absence of examination of those fabricators in the courts, absolutely no reliance can be placed upon the fact that those fabricators made any such statement against the accused company before the assessing officer during assessment proceedings.

24. Learned counsel for the complainant claimed that the proceedings before the income tax authorities are judicial proceedings under section 136 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, the statements of fabricators can be used.

25. Section 136 of The Income Tax Act, provides, that any proceedings under the Act before an income tax authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 and for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian penal code and every income tax authority shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 but not for the purposes of chapter XXVI of the criminal procedure code.

26. This section does not, per­se, makes admissible the proceedings or the statements of individuals recorded during the assessment proceedings. The purpose of this section to make it judicial proceedings is only limited to the point that in case during such proceedings any false statement or evidence is given such person can be proceeded against under section 193/196 of Indian penal code or section 228 of the Indian penal code, as the case may be. This section nowhere provides that the statements recorded by an assessing officer during assessment proceedings are per se admissible in evidence, without examination of the person making the statement. Therefore this contention of learned counsel for the complainant is of no help. Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 16 of 18 /e 17

27. Turning to the cheques which are claimed to have been encashed by the accused No 7, again, even if this fact is taken to be proved that the accused No 7 encashed certain cheques which were in the name of fabricators, that fact by itself does not prove the guilt of either the accused No 7 or the accused No 1 to 6 to the effect that he encashed the cheques and gave the money to the accused No 1 to accused No 6. At the most this fact proves that the cheques were encashed by the accused No 7. But then he has specifically stated in his examination that he used to encash those cheques for the fabricators. In absence of examination of fabricators, to deny this fact, the said fact has to be read in favour of the accused and none else. Although the claim of accused No 7, that he used to encash the cheques for the fabricators and not for the accused company or its directors, may not appeal to common sense and may not appear inspiring, but, unfortunately due to non examination of the fabricators the benefit of this has to be given to the accused.

28. In such circumstances the complainant has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused company and its directors that they made claim of rebate in the name of non­existent fabricators or that they used to inflate the fabrication bills or that fictitious fabrication rebates were claimed.

29. So far is accused No 8 is concerned, against him the prosecution case was that he gave an affidavit before the assessing officer during assessment proceedings which was not true. Unfortunately the complainant has not even proved that affidavit on Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 17 of 18 /e 18 record, what to talk of the falsity of the claim made by the accused No 8 in the affidavit.

30. For the foregoing reasons there is only one conclusion which comes out of this discussion, that is, that the complainant has failed to prove its case against any of the eight accused and all the eight accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and thus they are acquitted of the charges. 

      ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON                                           (DIG VINAY SINGH) 

      FEBRUARY 1st, 2010          ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

                                             SPECIAL ACTS, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS 

                                                                                   DELHI

Judiciary/ judgment / ITO vs. M/s Handgar Indexport (P) Ltd / CC No.82/4/09 / February 1 , 2010/ Page 18 of 18 /e