Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Exotic Fashion And Others on 1 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL,CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, EAST/KKD/DELHI
CBI Vs. Exotic Fashion and Others
RC9/10(E)/95
JUDGMENT
a). ID No. of the case : 02400R0011161997
b). Date of commission of offence : In the year 19931994
c). Name of complainant, if any :
d). Name & address of accused :1) M/s. Exotic Fashions
G5, South Extn.
Part II, New Delhi
(Represented by Sh.
Ahtasham Alam, Partner)
2) Sh. Ahtasham Alam
Partner M/s. Exotic Fashions
G5, South Extn. Part II, New
Delhi
3) M/s. Galaxy International
G5, South Extn. Part II, New
Delhi
(Represented by Sh. Javed
Alam, Partner)
4) Sh. Javed Alam
Partner M/s. Galaxy
International
G5,South Extn., Part II
New Delhi
CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013
Page 1 of 26
e). The offence complained of : u/sec 420/120 B,465,471 IPC
f). The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g). Final order : Convicted
h). The date of such order : 10/07/2013
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Briefly stated the facts as disclosed in the charge sheet are that two cases were registered by CBI, one against M/s. Exotic Fashions and its partner Sh. Javed Alam and other against M/s. Galaxy International and its partner Javed Alam. In RC 9(E)/95_SIU_VIII, it is stated that its partner Javed Alam attempted to cheat Government of India in order to obtain duty free imports licence under value based advance licences scheme for total CIF value of Rs. 448.17 Lakhs. The firm made import of polypropylene under six bills of entry against advance licence P/W/2051325 for Rs. 15,60,828/. The firm filed 14 shipping bills dated 25/01/1994 at Manglore Port falsely showing export of 11,26,000 nos of plastic marker pens valued at Rs. 3,52,10,020/ and nine shipping bills dated 25/01/1994 showing export of 139100 Nos. of video cassettes valued more than 3.00 crores to M/s. Vishal International General Trading, PO Box No. 3397, Ajman, UAE. These exports were being made in fulfillment of export obligation of the six advance licences issued to the firm and on checking of consignment it was found by DRI, Manglore that it contained old video cassettes and audio cassettes and refill less ball point pens of inferior quality valued at Rs.3,38,480/. Later on firm M/s. Exotic Fashions deposited Rs.22 Lakhs with DRI on 03/03/1994 on account of import duty exempt amount and thus, the firm did not fulfill the export obligation under the above licences and attempted to cheat the Govt. of India.
In RC 10(E)/95 it is stated that M/s. Galaxy International had attempted to cheat the Govt. of India by misdeclaration in the shipping bills filed on behalf of the firm in order to become eligible for duty free imports under Value Based Advance Licence issued to the firm by the office of JDGFT, New Delhi. The firm obtained five value Based Advance Licences for total CIF value of Rs. 341.45 CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 2 of 26 lakhs and filed seven shipping bills dated 25.01.1994 at Manglore Port falsely showing export of 5,93,500 Nos of plastic marker pens valued at Rs. 1,85,58,745/ and nine shipping bills dated 25/01/1994 showing export of 139925 Nos of video cassettes valued at Rs. 3,06,28,183/ to M/s. Vishal International General Trading, Ajman, UAE. These exports were stated to be made in fulfillment of export obligations of the 6 advance licences issued to the firm and on checking of consignment it was found that the same contained old video cassettes and audio cassettes and refill less ball point pens of inferior quality valued at Rs. 3,38,480/ only. It is stated that investigation further revealed that in firm M/s. Exotic Fashions, Sh. Ahtasham Alam and Smt. Zarina Alam were partners. Sh. Ahtasham Alam, partner of M/s. Exotic Fashions had made the applications for issuance of Advance Licences under Duty Exemption Scheme. Alongwith application M/s. Exotic Fashions had also furnished photocopy of RCMC No. AEPC/REG/MER/1286, photocopy of importexport code no., photocopy of CA Certificate and photocopy of declaration. M/s. Galaxy International was having four partner but the applications for issuance of Advance Licences under Duty Exemption Scheme was made by the accused Javed Alam. Alongwith application M/s. Galaxy international had also furnished photocopy of RCMC No. ISEPC/REG/BOM/MER/85/715, TR6, photocopy of importexport code no, photocopy of CA Certificate and photocopy of declaration. It is further stated that investigation revealed that both the firms were running their business from the officecumresidence situated at G5, South Extension Part II, New Delhi and also had their office / place of work at No. 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli. It is stated that in the application for issuance of advance licence they had given false information relating to the details of manufacturer M/s. Elite India. It is stated that M/s. Elite India was neither in existence nor was engaged in the manufacturing and supply of Video Cassettes and Plastic Marker Pens and the address of M/s. Elite India was the same as that of the accused i.e 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. It is stated that advance licences were given to the accused M/s. Exotic Fashions and M/s. Galaxy International on the basis of false information supplied by them, though, Sh. Ahtasham Alam partner of M/s. Exotic Fashins and Sh. Javed Alam, partner of M/s. Galaxy International were not eligible to get the licences on the basis of furnishing of false information. It is further stated that Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore had already filed a CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 3 of 26 complaint no. 42/97 u/sec 113 (d) and 114 (1) of Customs Act 1962 and the accused persons are also liable to be punished u/sec 135 of the Custom's Act 1962 in the court of First Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore against the firm M/s. Exotic Fashions, Sh. Ahtasham Alam, M/s. Galaxy International and Sh. Javed Alam and others on the aspect of misdeclaration of export cargo in the shipping bills. As far as import of goods under licence no. P/W/2051325 by the firm M/s. Exotic Fashions is concerned, the custom department at Mumbai had also initiated separate proceedings. As far as false information relating to the supporting manufacturer M/s. Elite India is concerned the charge sheet has been filed in the present court.
2. After filing of charge sheet, cognizance was taken. Accused persons were summoned as per law and copy of charge sheet was supplied to them. Thereafter, charges were framed against accused persons vide order dated 16/01/2002 U/s. 420 r/w section 120B IPC but the said order was set aside by Hon'ble Session Judge. Again the charge was framed vide order 18/08/2004 u/sec 420 IPC r/w section 120 B IPC and u/sec 471/465 IPC to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of prosecution. PWs were summoned accordingly.
3. PW1 is Sh. S.H.R. Hashmi, who deposed that he had passed the order dated 26/07/1995, Mark A1 while he was posted in the office of DGFT. As per Mark A1, show cause notices issued to the accused firm M/s. Exotic Fashion as why the Value Based Advance Licences issued to them be not cancelled, were dropped as the firm suomoto had surrendered the licences.
4. PW2 who was posted as Foreign Trade Development Officer and Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade in the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade has deposed that he had on 26/06/96 handed over 11 files pertaining to advance licences to M/s. Exotic Fashions and M/s. Galaxy International. IO of CBI had prepared the seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. On 13/07/2009 he had again handed over the original application dated 15/04/95 of Exotic Fashions signed by Javed Alam vide receipt memo Ex. PW2/B. He has further deposed that documents handed over by him to the IO were exhibited as Ex. PW2/C to PW2/G and the same bears the signature of accused Javed Alam. He has also stated during his crossexamination that he had handed over documents in official capacity and had no knowledge about the present case. He CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 4 of 26 has also admitted that value based advance licences were given and issued after adopting the prescribed procedure including personal verification. He has also admitted that in the current records there was no partnership deed to show that who were the partners of Exotic Fashions and Galaxy International.
PW3 Sh. V. Rajuraman was the UDC posted in the office of JDGFT. He has also deposed that on 10/04/1997 he had handed over the licencing files and legal agreement undertaking to the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/1. Legal undertaking has been proved as Ex. PW3/2.
PW4 Mrs. Lata Shukla has stated that she was posted in the office of Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi as Asstt. Chief Controller and had issued advance import licence no. P/W/2051325 which is exhibited as Ex. PW4/7 on the condition that firm M/s. Exotic Fashion shall export to GCA 593548 number of marker pen. Application of the accused M/s. Export Fashion has been proved as Ex. PW4/1. The covering letter dated 12/05/1993 is proved as Ex. PW4/2 and the TR form submitted alongwith the application is exhibited as Ex. PW4/3, copy of R.C. M.C is mark Z1,copy of export house is mark Z2, copy of export order is mark Z3, copy of IEC is mark Z4, CA certificate is exhibited as Ex. PW4/4. Declaration is mark Z5, consent letter of supporting manufacturer of M/s. Elite India is exhibited as Ex. PW4/5. Application of M/s. Exotic Fashions for advance licence is exhibited as Ex. PW4/8 and TR form submitted alongwith application dated 26/05/1993 is exhibited as Ex. PW4/9. Photocopy of original RCMC is exhibited as Ex. PW5/2. Declaration filed alongwith application is exhibited as Ex. PW4/10 and application in the prescribed format is exhibited as Ex. PW4/11. In its application also M/s Exotic Fashions declared M/s. Elite India as supporting manufacturer. The application of Exotic Fashions was processed in the office vide note sheets which are exhibited as Ex. PW4/12 and after approval licence bearing no. P/W2051461 dated 23/06/1993 was issued. The same has been proved as Ex. PW4/13 and the condition sheet of the licence is exhibited as Ex. PW4/13. Similarly vide application dated 17/05/1993 M/s. Exotic Fashions had applied for grant of advance licence. The same was processed and the licence bearing no. P/W/2051460 dated 23/06/1993 was issued and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW4/22. Documents pertaining to the licence no. P/K/2051326 and P/K/2051348 issued to M/s. Galaxy International and the same are exhibited as Ex. PW4/24 to PW4/39. During crossexamination she has CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 5 of 26 stated that licences were issued after completing the formalities and all the prescribed documents were tendered after adopting the procedure and that she has no personal knowledge regarding the facts of the case. She has stated that during recording of statement by the IO original file of M/s. Exotic Fashions and M/s. Galaxy International were placed before her and her statement was recorded by the IO.
PW5 Anil Kumar has deposed that in the year 1993 he was working as Dy. Director in Membership Department of Apparel Export Promotion Council, Nehru Place, Delhi and an application for renewal of RCMC No. AEPC/REG/MER/12868/NR/87 was received on 26/02/1993 under the signature of partner of M/s. Exotic Fashion and the said application is exhibited as Ex. PW5/1. This application contend the original RCMC certificate which was valid upto 09/03/92 and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW5/2. An undertaking dated 24/02/1993 is exhibited as Ex. PW5/4. The partner of M/s. Exotic Fashion had requested for change of constitution w.e.f 08/02/1993 and partners Sh. Asad Khan, Yusuf Khan and Nawab Alam had expired and thereafter, only two partners remained in the deed of retirement which is marked as mark X. Thereafter, a fresh RCMC certificate was issued which is exhibited as Ex. PW5/5 wherein partners of M/s. Exotic Fashion were Sh. Ahtasham Alam and Smt. Zarina Alam.
PW6 Sh. Mool Chand in his examinationinchief has deposed that he had seen the factory of Javed at the address 1066, Ward No. 8 which is adjoining to his house and that Javed was doing the work of ready made garment in that factory.
PW7 Sh. Ratan Singh has stated that he had retired from the office of Jt. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and after retirement was doing consultancy work and was engaged with Sh. Javed Alam and had also done the consultancy job of M/s. Galaxy International. It is stated that both the firms were engaged in the exports of ladies silk garments. He has stated that he had prepared the application for advance licence on the asking of Javed Alam. He has stated that application for advance licence dated 14/06/1993 bears the signature of accused Ahtasham Alam which is exhibited as Ex. PW7/1. The application form in appendix XVII bears the signature of Ahtasham Alam and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW7/2. Alongwith application list of items to be imported was also submitted and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW7/3 bearing the signature of CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 6 of 26 accused Ahtasham Alam. Photocopy of AEPC certificate is exhibited as Ex. PW7/4. List of items to be imported alongwith application is exhibited as Ex. PW7/5. Photocopy of IEC certificate, declaration,RCMC of FIEO are proved as PW7/6 to PW7/8 and all these documents bear the signature of accused Ahtasham Alam. Various documents which were submitted by accused Ahtasham Alam for grant of licence bears his signature and were proved as Ex. PW7/9 and PW7/10. The letter dated 28/12/1993 authorizing PW7 to give his consultancy in obtaining advance licence is exhibited as Ex. PW7/12. Legal notice is exhibited as Ex. PW7/13 which also bears the signature of accused Ahtasham Alam. This witness has also proved that Ex. PW4/1 and ex. PW4/2 also bears the signature of Ahtasham Alam. Documents exhibited from Ex. PW7/14 to PW7/24 also bears the signature of accused Ahtasham Alam. After perusal of the file of the advance licence in which application dated 26/05/1993 was there, witness PW7 has stated that Ex. PW4/A and PW4/11 also bears the signature of accused Ahtasham Alam. Whereas other documents submitted by accused for grant of advance licence bearing the signature of accused Ahtasham Alam and Javed Alam have been proved as Ex. PW7/25 to PW7/96. During cross he has admitted that M/s. Galaxy International and Exotic Fashion are the firm who had won the national award from the Govt. Of India in the field of export of ladies silk garments and the office of the accused at Mehrauli is spread over large place. It is stated that the office of supporting manufacturer M/s. Elite India may or may not be at third floor or fourth floor of the said building as he had never gone upstairs.
PW8 Sh. Matbar Singh has deposed that he had worked as Controller of Imports and Exports in the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (CLA) and that if a firm required a value based advance licence they have to submit, an application with the treasury challan in form no. TR6, details of item to be imported, chartered accountant certificate showing the past exports, copy of export order, copy of import and export code no, copy of RCMC certificate and thereafter, the file is put up with dealing assistant who after scrutinizing the file puts up the same to him and thereafter, file is put up to DGFT and then Joint Director for approval and after approval, licenses were issued to the firm. He has also deposed that vide application dated 22/06/1993 M/s. Galaxy International had applied for grant of advance licence and had submitted the application Ex. PW7/45. Alongwith the application M/s. Galaxy International submitted the TR CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 7 of 26 form Ex. PW8/A. The photocopy of RCMC certificate is exhibited as Ex. PW7/55, photocopy of IEC No. CA Certificate is exhibited as Ex. PW8/B and Declaration is exhibited as Ex. PW7/56. In its application the firm declared M/s Elite India, 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehroli, New Delhi as their supporting manufacturer and had submitted the consent letter Ex.PW8/C and after scrutinization licence no. P/K/231 9917 for an amount of Rs. 45 Lacs was issued to M/s. Galaxy International. Licence has been proved as Ex. PW8/E and the condition sheet of the licence is exhibited as Ex. PW8/F. Similarly, vide application dated 21/06/1993 also M/s. Galaxy International was granted licence no. P/K/2319934 and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW8/L. Vide application dated 19/06/1993 M/s. Galaxy international had applied for grant of advance licence and the letter for submitting the application is exhibited as Ex. PW7/49. Licence bearing no. P/K/2319935 which is exhibited as Ex. PW8/S was issued to M/s. Galaxy International. Similarly M/s. Exotic Fashion was granted license no. P/W/2051524 which is exhibited as Ex. PW8/Z on their application dated 14/06/1993. The application alongwith supporting documents are exhibited as Ex. PW7/1, PW7/2,PW8/V,PW8/W and PW7/7. In its application also M/s. Exotic Fashion has declared M/s. Elite India as their supporting manufacturer and their consent letter is exhibited as Ex. PW8/X. Similarly licence no. P/W/2319914 has been exhibited as PW8/47 issued to M/s. Exotic Fashion on the application dated 14/06/1993 which is exhibited as Ex. PW7/69. The licence bearing no. P/W/2051523 exhibited as Ex. PW8/A14 issued on the application dated 14/06/1993 exhibited as Ex. PW7/69 to M/s. Exotic Fashion.
PW9 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta has stated that he was also working in the office of JDGFT and that a legal agreement undertaking was executed in the office of CLA before making any import. He has further deposed that in the present case the legal undertaking was accepted by Sh. B.S. Pal in December 1993 and the original LUT is exhibited as Ex. PW3/2 bearing the signature of partner of M/s. Exotic Fashion and the same was accepted by the office against the license no. P/W/2051325. He has further stated that he had also written letter to M/s. Exotic Fashion for furnishing the documentary evidence in fulfillment of export obligation against the said advance licence no. 2051325.
PW10 Sh. Birbal has deposed that he had handed over the file of the licence no. 2051325 to the IO. He has proved the seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 8 of 26 PW11 Sh. Dinesh Pradhan has deposed that he had witnessed the giving of specimen signature by the accused Shane Alam and that the accused had given his specimen signature on 21 sheets to the IO before him. Specimen signatures have been proved as Ex. PW11/1 to PW11/21.
PW12 Sh. T. Joshi, Asstt. Govt. Examiner of Questioned document who has examined the questioned documents alongwith sample handwriting of accused and after examining the question document alongwith sample handwriting he has opined that same has been written by one and the same person. His opinion has been exhibited as Ex. PW12/4 and the reasons for his opinion are exhibited as Ex. PW12/5. He has stated that documents were also examined by Late Sh. R.K. Jain, Dy. Government Examiner and he had also come to the same conclusion. PW12 had also identified the signature of Late Sh. R.K. Jain.
PW13 Sh. Ram Sarup has stated that he was working as inspector CBI and during investigation he had obtained GEQD opinion from the office of Deputy GEQD Shimla and after scrutinizing the GEQD opinion he had filed the supplementary charge sheet against M/s. Exotic Fashion, Shane Alam @ Ahtasham Alam, M/s. Galaxy International and Sh. Javed Alam.
PW14 Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit who has stated that earlier he was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police and a case bearing no. RC9(E)/95 SIUVIII was registered against on 29/12/1995 against M/s. Exotic Fashion and its partner Javed Alam under the signature of Sh. Vivek Johari, the then SP CBI SIUVIII, New Delhi. FIR has been proved as Ex. PW14/B. He has further deposed that another case bearing no. RC10(E)/95 SIU VIII dated 29/12/1995 was also registered against M/s. Galaxy International and its partner Sh. Javed Alam. FIR of this case has been proved as Ex. PW14/B and after registration of both the cases he has investigated the matter and collected documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A, 3/1, 2/A & 14/C and had also obtained the specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Javed Alam. The sample handwriting of accused has been proved as Ex. PW14/D. He has stated that he had also obtained the specimen signature and handwriting of accused Javed Alam on the papers mark S7 to S26 and his specimen signatures / handwriting are collectively proved as Ex. PW14/E. He had also forwarded the specimen handwriting and signature of the accused alongwith questioned documents for obtaining the GEQD opinion. He has stated that during the CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 9 of 26 investigation he found that M/s. Exotic Fashion had obtained six value based advance licence on the basis of the misdeclaration. It is stated that they had shown false information relating to supporting manufacturer M/s. Elite India, Ward No. 8, Mehroli, New Delhi. The said manufacturer was not found in existence nor any manufacturing unit was found. It is further stated that two firms were also caught by DRI as they were not fulfilling the export obligations against the licences. It is stated that he had filed charge sheet after investigation. During crossexamination he has stated that he had visited the factory premises situated at 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehroli, Delhi and he had recorded the statement of Sh. Amarjeet Singh and Sh. Mool Chand who were residing surrounding to the factory premises. He has further stated that he himself had physically verified the existence of manufacturing unit M/s. Elite India and it was then that he came to know that it does not exist. He has denied the suggestion that he had not inquired from the department of the small scale industries regarding existence of M/s. Elite India.
PW15 has stated that he was working as SI in CBI and during further investigation he had collected the documents from Sh. K.P. Singh vide memo Ex. PW2/B. He has stated that admitted mark A1 to A8 alongwith questioned writing marked Q1 to Q13 and specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Javed Alam marked S1 to S26 were forwarded by him to Shimla for examination / GEQD opinion and he had obtained the GEQD opinion and filed the supplementary charge sheet.
PW16 Sh. Mohinder Singh who had stated that he had examined the questioned documents Q1 to Q13 alongwith specimen writing of Sh. Javed Alam and admitted writing also of Javed Alam and after careful examination he had concluded that the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S1 to S26 and A1 to A8 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q13. He has further stated that Mr. M.L. Sharma, Dy. GEQD had also independently examined all the documents and came to the same conclusion.
PW17 Sh. Jagmohan Singh Rawat who has stated that he was employee of M/s. Exotic Fashion and M/s. Galaxy International and Sh. Ahtasham Alam and Smt. Zarina Alam were the partners of M/s. |Exotic Fashion and Shane Alam and Mr. Javed Alam were the partners of M/s. Galaxy International. He has further CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 10 of 26 stated that he did not remember if he had seen the board of M/s. Elite India at 1066, Ward 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. He had identified the signature of Javed Alam on the documents Ex. PW7/50 and Ex. PW7/54. He had also seen documents Ex. PW7/34 to PW7/37, PW4/8, PW4/11 and various other documents. He had also identified the signature of Javed Alam on Ex.
PW7/16,PW7/61,PW7/62, PW7/45, PW7/46,PW4/48, PW7/40 and PW7/44. During crossexamination by ld. APP for CBI he has stated that he was frequently visiting the place at 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi from where the business of M/s. Exotic Fashion and Galaxy International was looked into. Further he did not remember whether he had never seen M/s. Elite India at Mehrauli address. During crossexamination he has admitted that he had worked for a period of 810 years with M/s. Exotic Fashion and M/s. Galaxy International and that the firm deals in Garments export as well as plastic and marker pens. He has further stated that whenever he visited at the Mehrauli office, he found that plastic related articles and garments related articles were packed in different units. He has further stated during the crossexamination that there are so many units at 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli and how many boards were affixed there he did not remember. He has further stated that it was in his complete knowledge that a manufacturing unit M/s. Elite India is working at 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli and both the firms namely M/s. Galaxy International and M/s. Exotic Fashion were also dealing in plastic manufacturing articles. Thereafter, PE was closed and matter was fixed for SA.
5. Statement of accused Ahtasham Alam was recorded u/sec 313 Cr. PC. He has admitted that Sh. S.H.R. Hashmi had issued letter dated 26/07/1995 which is marked A1. Regarding other incriminating evidence the accused has stated that it is a matter of record and matter of prescribed procedure. Accused has also stated that M/s Exotic Fashions was also engaged and dealing in the business of garment exports, plastic marker pen, leather units, plastic raw material etc. As far as evidence of PW5 that accused Ahtasham Alam was partner alongwith Smt. Zarina Alam is concerned, the accused did not deny this statement of PW5 but only stated that Smt. Zarina Alam was never the active partner. Further when the evidence of PW7 has been put to him then he denied that documents bears his signature. He has further stated that case was registered without any legal and admissible evidence in a bias manner. He has further stated that M/s. Elite India CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 11 of 26 was a manufacturing unit and was in working condition as per prescribed rules, procedure and norms.
Accused Javed Alam has made his statement u/sec 313 Cr.PC and taken same defence/pleas as that of Ahtasham Alam.
6. Accused persons have produced only one witness in their defence DW1 Sh. S.S. Malhotra who was inspector in the office of Commissioner of Industries, Patparganj, Delhi. He has stated that report regarding the issuance of the provisional certificate registration no. 55/55/108/QUJ/1189/STTH dated 28/12/1993 in the name of M/s.Elite India was prepared by Sh. Premananda Prusty vide letter no. 1654 dated 05/10/2012 and the same Ex. DW1/A. As per this report, the provisional certificate was issued by the department on 28/12/1993 by Sh. T.P. Singh and the copy of the same is Ex. DX.
7. Perusal of Ex. DW1/A shows that genuineness of the documents Ex. DX could not be verified in the absence of the original and it was only on the basis of copy provided in the court on 24/09/2012 that the letter DW1/A has been issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Delhi.
8. I have heard Sh. Sagar Shankar, Ld. APP for CBI and Sh. Rajesh Arora, Ld. counsel for accused. Perused the record. The counsel for the accused has argued that when the documents were exhibited during the testimony of PWs, PW2, PW7, the counsel had objected to the exhibiting of all documents and it was directed that the objections taken by the defence counsel would be decided at the time of final arguments. Perusal of the testimony of PW7 shows that the counsel had objected to the exhibiting of the documents Ex.PW7/1 which is an application made by the accused Ahtesham Alam on 14.06.1993 under the duty exempted scheme. Thereafter, the counsel objected to exhibiting of almost each and every document regarding the mode of proof. The witness Ratan Singh had stated that he was doing the consultancy job for the accused persons and thus, identified the handwriting of accused Javed Alam on the various documents including the applications filed by the accused persons for grant of value based advance licences under the duty exemption scheme. The accused persons have not categorically taken a defence that they had never applied for grant of advance licences or that the documents did not had their signatures. In fact at the time of arguments on charge the accused persons had relied upon the documents Mark A1 and had even called a witness from the office of JDGFT for admission / denial of the CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 12 of 26 documents. The document Mark A1 was admitted to be issued by PW1. The accused persons had relied upon this document to show that they had suo moto surrendered the advance licences and they wanted to rely upon this document according to which, show cause notices issued to them for cancellation of the advance licences were withdrawn. It is never being the stand / defence of the accused person that they had not applied for the advance licenses, rather they had wanted to plead that they had already paid penalty for the goods imported, against which they could not make the corresponding export. When the accused persons were themselves relying upon documents to show that they had surrendered the advances licences granted to them and that they had never specifically taken a plea that they had not applied for grant of advances licences, the objections raised by the counsel at the time of examination of PW7 and at the time of exhibiting of the documents were raised only for the sake of raising objections. PW7 was acquainted with the handwriting of the accused persons and thus, could have identified their handwriting and the documents were validly proved and exhibited. Documents showing that applications for grant of advances licenses were made by the accused persons were thus, validly proved.
Main defence of the accused persons is that prosecution has not been able to prove that M/s. Elite India did not exist and PW6,PW7 and PW17 have not supported the case of prosecution on this aspect. Though, PW17 was declared hostile on certain aspects and PW7 also has not categorically stated that he has not seen the office of supporting manufacturer M/s. Elite India,1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. However, testimony of PW6, PW7 and PW17 has to be analysed and scrutinized carefully.
9. The first question is whether the evidence of a hostile witness is liable to be totally rejected? The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments held that the evidence of a hostile witness could not be totally rejected, if given in favour of the prosecution or accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence, which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. The following are some of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard.
10. In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration AIR 1976 SC 294 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, held that when a witness is examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 13 of 26 the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be discarded as a whole. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such crossexamination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.
11. In Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa AIR 1977 SC 170 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act held that whenever a witness called by a party is sought to be crossexamined, the Court must exercise its discretion judiciously. Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act is the only provision under which a party calling its own witnesses may claim permission of the Court to crossexamine them.
12. Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus:
"154. Question by party to his own witness: The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him, which might be put in crossexamination by the adverse party."
13. Section 154 does not in terms or by necessary implication confine the exercise of the power by the Court before the examinationinchief is concluded or to any particular stage of the examination of the witness. It is wide in scope and the discretion is entirely to the Court to exercise the power when the circumstances demand. To confine this power to the stage of examinationinchief is to make it ineffective in practice. A clever witness in his examinationinchief faithfully conforms to what he stated earlier to the police or in committing Court, but in the crossexamination introduces statements in a subtle way contradicting in effect what he stated in the examinationinchief. If his design is obvious, we do not see why the Court cannot, during the course of his crossexamination, permit the person calling him as a witness to put questions to him or might be put CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 14 of 26 in crossexamination by the adverse party.
14. Before a Court exercises discretion in declaring a witness hostile, there must be some material to show that the witness has gone back on his earlier statement or is not speaking the truth or has exhibited an element of hostility or has changed sides and transfers his loyalty to the adversary. Furthermore, it is not merely on the basis of a small or insignificant omission that the witness may have made before the earlier authorities that the party calling the witness can ask the Court to exercise its discretion.
15. In Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that declaring a witness hostile is no ground by itself to reject his testimony in toto. His testimony not shaken on material points in cross examination cannot be brushed side.
16. In State of U.P. v, Ramesh Prasad Misra AIR 1996 SC 2766 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted.
17. In Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 2003 SCC (Crl.) 112 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the declaration of a witness to be hostile does not ipso facto reject the evidence. The portion of evidence being advantageous to the parties may be taken advantage of, but the Court should be extremely cautious and circumspect in such acceptance.
18. In Bhagatram v. State of M.P. 1990 Crl.L.J. 2407 (M.P.) a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held as follows:
The declaration of a witness as hostile one, has not the effect of washing away his entire evidence and acceptable portions can be acted upon.
19. In Profulla Kumar Sarkar v. Emperor AIR 1931 Cal. 401 (F.B.) a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court held as follows:
The evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected either in whole or in part. It is not also to be rejected so far as it is in favour of the party catling the witness, nor is it to be rejected so far as it is in favour of the opposite party. The whole of CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 15 of 26 the evidence so far as it affects both parties favourably or unfavourably must go to the jury for what it is worth.
20. In Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1991 SCC (Cr.) 916, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
The evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and crossexamined him. The evidence of such a witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
21. The above legal position makes it clear that the evidence of a prosecution witness, who turned hostile need not be totally rejected and it can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable. The accused may also take advantage of such portion of the evidence of the hostile witness, which is contradictory to the prosecution version.
22. In the above perspective, let us analyse the testimony of PW6, PW7 and PW17.
PW6 Sh. Mool Chand during his crossexamination has stated that he was illiterate and therefore, he cannot say whether any board of M/s. Elite India was affixed at the premises 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi or not. However, this witness has clearly stated that the factory of accused Javed Alam existed at the address 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi and thus, has supported the case of prosecution to the extent that premises bearing no. 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi belongs to the accused Javed Alam and that he was doing the work of readymade garments in the factory. PW7 Sh. Ratan Singh who was doing consultancy work for the accused persons has also stated that he had visited the Mehrauli unit one or two times and when he went to Mehrauli, he had not seen the office of M/s. Elite India. He has also stated that he used to sit in the office of Javed Alam at Mehrauli which also supports the case of the prosecution to the extent that address bearing Premises No.1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi belonged to the accused Javed Alam and not to any third person. PW17 has also stated that he was one of the employee of M/s. Exotic Fashion and M/s. Galaxy International and he used to visit Mehrauli office and that there were so many units at 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. He has also thus supported the CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 16 of 26 case of prosecution to the extent that the office of the accused persons existed at Mehrauli address. Statements of PW6,PW7 and PW17 shows that accused persons were also carrying out their business from the premises 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. PW6 and PW7 though have stated that they cannot say whether the office of Elite India exists at the premises no.1066, Ward No.8, Mehrauli, New Delhi but they have also not categorically stated in positive terms that they have ever seen such firm in existence at the said address of Mehrauli. Statement of PW6, PW7 and PW17 coupled with the statement of IO PW14 established the fact that no such manufacturer as M/s Elite India at premises no. 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi existed actually at the site.
It can also not lost sight of the fact that onus on the prosecution in the present case was to prove a negative fact. The prosecution was to prove negatively that M/s. Elite India did not exist and to prove a fact in negative is difficult than to prove a positive fact. Once IO had stated that he had physically inspected the premises and he did not found M/s. Elite India to be existing at the site, onus had shifted upon the accused persons to prove in positive terms that M/s. Elite India did exist. The accused person had attached the letter of the supporting manufacturer M/s. Elite India alongwith their application for grant of value based advance license and it was in the knowledge of the accused persons only as to who was the signatory of said letter purportedly issued by supporting manufacturer. The complete details of the supporting manufacturer was also within the knowledge of the accused persons and if accused persons wanted to say that supporting manufacturer did exist at the address 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi then they should have proved the same by way of leading cogent and positive evidence. In their entire statement u/sec 313 Cr. PC they have not even disclosed whether the firm M/s. Elite India was proprietorship firm, partnership firm or company. The name of the persons who represented M/s. Elite India has also not been disclosed by the accused persons. Accused persons themselves have not stepped into the witness box to establish their defense that M/s. Elite India did exist, neither they have produced the person who was representing M/s Elite India and had signed the letter Ex.PW8/x, PW8/A5, PW8/A12, Ex.PW4/5, Ex.PW4/20 in favour of M/s Exotic Fashions and Ex.PW8/C, PW8/J, Ex.PW8/Q in favour of M/s Galaxy International. Even at the cost of repetition it is mentioned that testimony of PW6,PW7 and PW17 established that the office CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 17 of 26 of accused persons was also being run at the 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
As far as testimony of DW1 is concerned it is of no help to the accused persons as his entire statement and letter Ex. DW1/A is issued on the basis of photocopy of documents provided by the accused persons to the witness in the court on 24/09/2012. They have clearly stated that genuineness of the provisional certificate registration No. 55/55/108/QUJ/1189/STTH could not be verified in the absence of the original and thus, it has not been established that any firm in the name of M/s. Elite India was even provisionally registered with the department of Dy. Commissioner of Industry.
The accused persons in none of their documents disclosed that their office or factory existed at 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. As per documents Ex.PW3/D the accused Javed Alam had stated that G5, Sought Extn. PartII, Delhi was their only office at Delhi and they had no other branches. In the none of the documents have the accused persons disclosed that they had another office or branch or manufacturing unit at 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. In document Ex.Pw7/8 which is the registration cum membership Certificate issued by Apparel Export Promotion Council, Nehru Place, Delhi, the address of the factory is also G5, South Extension Part II, New Delhi and not 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
On the basis of evidence led and the appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses I am satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove that M/s Elite India did not exist and that the documents Ex.PW8/X,PW8/A5, PW8/A12, Ex.PW4/5, Ex.PW4/20 furnished by M/s Exotic Fashion for grant of advance license documents and Ex.PW8/C, PW8/J, Ex.PW8/Q furnished by M/s Galaxy International alongwith advance licence were forged documents.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that ingredients of conspiracy has not been proved and, therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 120B IPC. M/s Exotic Fashions as well as M/s Galaxy International are partnership firm, as per the case of the prosecution and this fact is admitted by the accused persons during their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In the charge framed it has been alleged that accused with unknown persons had conspired for obtaining the license under the duty free agreement entitlement certificate. It is a settled principle of law that to prove the offence of conspiracy, there must be an CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 18 of 26 agreement between two persons and the prosecution must prove by leading cogent evidence that at least two persons were involved in committing the offence. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors. AIR 1998 Supreme Court, 1406 and in case title as CBI Vs. Sukhbasi Y Ors., AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1224(1) that to prove the charge u/s 120B of the Code, there must be a criminal conspiracy at least between two or more persons. In the present case, none of the witnesses has stated that the accused persons in conspiracy with some other persons has obtained the advance licenses. The advance license were granted to M/s. Exotic Fashions and M/s Galaxy International. At the time of framing of charge of conspiracy, it can be said that accused had conspired with the unknown persons but during the trial, the prosecution has to prove by way of cogent evidence that accused in fact had conspired with somebody else to prove the offence of conspiracy. The Ld. Special Prosecutor for the CBI in fact argued that the accused Javed Alam had conspired with the accused M/s Galaxy International and accused Ahtesham Alam had conspired with M/s Exotic Fashions, therefore, offence u/s 120B stands proved. However, I am not in agreement with the argument of Ld. Prosecutor. Both the firms were the partnership firms and a firm cannot have a mind of its own. It acts through its partners and, therefore, partner could not have conspired with with its own firm. Moreover, no charge was framed stating that accused had entered into criminal conspiracy with its own firm and the charge against the accused is that he had conspired with unknown persons. After going through the testimony of the witnesses, I do not find sufficient evidence which could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had conspired with any other persons to obtain the advance license and, therefore, offence of conspiracy does not stands proved. The accused Ahtesham Alam and Javed Alam are acquitted of the offence us/ 120 B IPC.
However, on the basis of evidence led and on the basis of the above discussion and the appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence produced, it is established beyond doubt that accused Ahtesham Alam @ Shane Alam and Javed Alam had mentioned the name of the supporting manufacturer M/s. Elite India at No.1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli in their application for grant of value based advance licences. It has further proved that M/s Elite India was neither in existence at 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli nor CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 19 of 26 was engaged in the manufacturing and supply of Video Cassettes and Plastic Marker Pens and the testimony of PW6, PW7 and PW17 has clearly established that the address i.e 1066, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi pertains to work place relating to M/s. Exotic Fashions and M/s. Galaxy International and thus the licences were obtained on the basis of misrepresentation and on the basis of false documents and thus, both the accused have committed offence u/s 471 IPC. the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the accused M/s Exotic Fashion through its partnership Ahtesham Alam had obtained value based advance licences by using forged documents and by furnishing false information to the office of JDGFD regarding their supporting manufacturer M/s Elite India and thus, cheated upon Government of India and committed an offence u/s 465/471/420 IPC. Similarly, Sh. Javed Alam also obtained value based advance licences from the office of JDGFD in the name of its firm M/s Galaxy International by furnishing false information regarding their supporting manufacturer M/s Elite India and thus, cheated the Government of India. The accused M/s Exotic Fashions, M/s Galaxy International, Ahtesham Alam and Javed Alam are thus convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420/465/471 IPC.
Be put up for hearing the convict on order on sentence on 29.07.13. Announced in the open court on 10/07/2013 (KIRAN BANSAL) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE EAST /KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 20 of 26 IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL,CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EAST/KKD/DELHI CBI VS. EXOTIC FASHION AND OTHERS RC9/10(E)/95 Order on sentence 01.08.2013 Pr: Sh. S. Krishna Kumar, PP for CBI.
Sh. M. S. Sharma, Pairvi Officer for CBI.
Convict Ahtasham Alam @ Shane Alam and Javed Alam with ld. Counsel Sh. Rajesh Arora Arguments heard on the point of sentence. Records perused.
It is submitted by Ld. PP for CBI that no lenient view could be taken in the present case since the convict has secured advance licenses on the basis of forged documents and is guilty of economic offence/white collor crime. He has also prayed that separate sentences be passed and the sentences should run one after the other. It is also argued that the value of the imported goods was much in the year 193394 as now the value of rupee/money has depreciated with time and, thus, convict had obtained wrongful gain for a considerable amount. He has further argued that the act of the convict has affected the exchequer of the Government of India.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for convict have argued that the convict Ahtesham Alam @ Shane Alam and Javed Alam are of 54 years and 52 years of age respectively and both have two daughters of marriageable age and family to support. They are the only earning member of their CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 21 of 26 family. It is also submitted by ld. Counsel for the convict that they have no previous involvement and in the present case they are facing trial for about 19 years. Even they are not a previous convict, so lenient view be taken. Ld. PP for the CBI has argued that if the accused persons have faced trial for 19 years, then this fact also should not be ignored that the State machinery and judicial system has also been working on the matter since last more than 20 years due to the act of the convict.
I have gone through the rival contentions. No doubt that convicts are married man and their conduct/cooperative attitude during trial be not overlooked but on the other side, it can not be ignored that the advance import licenses secured by them is on the basis of a not genuine but forged documents and by using the same, they have obtained wrongful gain.
1. In "Sevaka Perumal Vs. State of TN,"1991 Crl. L.J 1854 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence.
2. In "Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State of W.B." 1994 SCC (Crl.) 358, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that large number of criminals go unpunished thereby, increasing, encouraging the criminals and in the ultimate making justice suffer by weakening the system's credibility. The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 22 of 26 which the court responds to the society's crime for the justice against the criminal. Justice demands that court should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but the rights of the victims of the crime and society at large while considering the imposition of the appropriate punishment.
3. In "State of Karnataka Vs. Sharanappa Basugonda Aregonda," 2002 Crl. L.J 2020 (SC) & in "State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna @ Raju,"
1987 Crl. L.J. 776 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the sentence imposed by the courts should have deterrent effect on the potential wrong doers, and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
4. In "State of MP Vs. Saleem," 2000 Crl. L.J. 3435 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that sentence imposed should respond to the society's crime for justice against criminals. Liberal attitude by imposing meager sentence will be counter productive.
5. In "Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries Vs. State of U.P, MANU/UP/0367/1985, it has been held that in case of conviction of a Company imposition of fine alone would be permissible.
6. In "Standard Chartered Bank and others etc. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and others, AIR 2005 SC 2622, also it has been held that CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 23 of 26 no immunity to companies from Prosecution in respect of offence in which punishment of imprisonment is mandatory and in such cases only fine can be imposed on the corporate body.
The counsel for the convict has argued that as the convict persons had surrendered, the unutilised licences suo moto, there was no wrongful gain and thus, they be granted benefit of probation. However, I do not want to proceed u/s 360 Cr.P.C in the present matter considering the public policy as this it is not considered to be against one person but to society at large. Therefore, I(a).Convict no.1 M/s Exotic Fashions is directed for, the offence u/s 420 IPC, to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/.
(b).Convict no.1 M/s. Exotic Fashions is directed for, the offence u/s 471 IPC to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/.
(c). Convict no.1 M/s. Exotic Fashions is directed for, the offence u/s 465 IPC, to pay fine of Rs.50,000/.
(d).Convict no.2 Ahtasham Alam is directed for, the offence u/s 420 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years. He is also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine SI of 2 month.
(e). Convict no.2 Ahtasham Alam is directed for, the offence u/s 471 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year. He is also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine SI of 2 months.
(f).Convict no.2 Ahtasham Alam is directed for, the offence u/s 465 IPCto undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year. He is also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine SI of 2 CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 24 of 26 months.
II(a).Convict no.3 M/s Galaxy International is directed for, the offence u/s 420 IPC, to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/.
(b).Convict no. 3 M/s Galaxy International is directed for, the offence u/s 471 IPC to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/.
(c). Convict no.3 M/s Galaxy International is directed for, the offence u/s 465 IPC, to pay fine of Rs.50,000/.
(d).Convict no.4 Javed Alam is directed for, the offence u/s 420 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years. He is also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine SI of 2 month.
(e). Convict no.4 Javed Alam is directed for, the offence u/s 471 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year. He is also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine SI of 2 months.
(f).Convict no.4 Javed Alam is directed for, the offence u/s 465 IPCto undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year. He is also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine SI of 2 months.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
An application u/s 389(3) Cr.P.C moved on behalf of accused persons on the ground that they want to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order on sentence. Copy given.
Considering the fact that accused persons were on bail during the period of trial, they are admitted to bail subject to furnishing of PB and SB of Rs. 20,000/ each. PB and SB furnished. Accepted till 31.08.13 and subject to the order of Superior courts, if any.
CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 25 of 26 Copy of this order and judgment be given to the accused free of cost.
Time sought on behalf of accused persons to pay fine.
Put up for deposit of fine amount on 06.08.2013.
ANNOUNCE IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 01.08.2013 (KIRAN BANSAL) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE EAST/KARKARDOOMA CORTS DELHI CBI Vs. Exotic Fashions and others Kiran Bansal, CMM/East/10.07.2013 Page 26 of 26