Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/1/1986 on 25 August, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. KANWALJEET ARORA: ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
Date of Institution of the case: 06.11.1989
Date on which arguments were heard: 21.08.08
Date of Judgment : 25.08.2008
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. no. of the case : RC1E/86 DLI
b) Date of commission of offence: During the year 1989
c) Name of the complainant : K.K.Gupta, Asstt. Collector(Customs)
d) Name of the accused, : 1) Girish Arora S/o Late Sh.N.L.Arora,
parentage and address R/o P-31, NDSE, Part-II, New Delhi
2) Pankaj Arora S/o Late Sh. N.L.Arora,
R/o 6/2, 1st Floor, Kalkaji Extension,
New Delhi.
3)Malkiat Singh S/o Late Sh. Inder Singh
R/o 9-C, Mohindra Park, Azadpur,
Delhi.
e) Offence complained : U/s 120-B, r/w 420/468/471 IPC & 132 &
135 of Customs Act, 1962.
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Convicted.
h) Date of such order : 25.08.2008
i)Brief statement and reasons for the decision of the Case:-
On complaint of Shri K.K.Gupta, Assistant Collector (Customs), Central Bureau of Investigations had registered RC No. 1E/86 for the offences u/s 120-B, r/w Sec. 420/468/471 IPC and 132 & 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2
2. After registration of the case, it was investigated and on conclusion of investigations, a charge sheet was submitted in the court for trial of accused Girish Arora, Pankaj Arora, being partners of M/s. Component Corporation and Malkiat Singh, their employee.
3. During the course of investigations, it was revealed and the same has been alleged in the charge sheet that accused Girish Arora, Pankaj Arora and Malkiat Singh had entered into a conspiracy to cheat the Government of India so as to evade the custom duties on the import of photocopying machine and its components. It is alleged in the charge sheet that in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy hatched amongst themselves, Girish Arora and Pankaj Arora formed a bogus firm under the name of M/s. Component Corporation having its registered office as 46, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi and a factory premises at A-38, Sector-10, Noida (UP), whereas no such factory ever existed at the given address. It was alleged that under the Import and Export Policy 1985-88, accused persons had obtained "open general licence" in the name of the firm under the "actual user category" and imported photocopying machine and other components during August 1985 to November 1985 from Singapore. It was alleged that the accused persons had purchased these material from one Salvinder Singh, Proprietor of M/s. White Star (S) P.Ltd., Singapore. It was alleged that the accused persons on behalf of their firm had filed 15 bogus and under valued invoices which were never issued by Salvinder Singh of M/s. White Star (S) P.Ltd., Singapore. It was further alleged that a bogus declaration was also submitted by the accused persons with the department that they are the actual users of the imported items whereas they 3 had sold the goods so imported by them in the open market against premium. It was alleged that on examination, it was found that due to under valuation of the forged invoices/bills, accused persons had evaded custom duties to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. During the course of investigations, requisite sanction to prosecute accused Girish Arora and Pankaj Arora was granted by Shri B.C.Rastogi, collector of Customs, Delhi, on 31.08.1988 and sanction to prosecute, Malkiat Singh was granted by Shri A.K.Pandey, Collector of Customs on 25.10.1989.
5. Armed with the requisite sanction to prosecute the accused persons for the offence u/s 132 & 135 of the Customs Act 1962, apart from other offences under Indian Penal Code, charge sheet was submitted in court.
6. Ld. Predecessor of this court took cognizance of the offence and the accused persons were summoned. Copies of the charge sheet in compliance with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused persons. Finding a prima facie case for the offence punishable u/s 120-B, r/w 420 IPC and for the offence u/s 468/471 & u/s 132/135 of the Customs Act, requisite charge was framed against the accused persons, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty.
7. Prosecution was thereafter called upon to substantiate its case by examining its witnesses. To do so, sufficient number of opportunities were granted to the prosecution. Availing the given opportunities, prosecution had examined 17 of its witnesses, out of which PW-17 Shri Ramji Singh did not appear in the witness box for his cross examination, therefore, his deposition became inconsequential for the case of the prosecution as this witness did not 4 stand the test of cross examination.
8. During the course of trial, all the three accused persons filed an application admitting the prosecution evidence against them. In view of their application, Ld. PP for CBI submitted that he did not wish to lead any further evidence. On statement of Ld. PP for CBI, prosecution evidence was closed.
9. Statement of all the three accused persons were recorded separately u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein prosecution evidence on record was put to them to which they gave their replies in affirmative and admitted the same.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri Anil Tanwar, PP for CBI and Shri Anish Kaushik, Advocate, counsel for the accused persons. I have also perused the prosecution evidence on record.
11. For the purpose of establishing its case, the prosecution had examined as many as sixteen of its witnesses. PW-2 Sarabjeet, PW-3 Sunder Lal Jain and PW-10 Susheel Kakkar, who were having their shops/properties in the vicinity of 46, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi, were produced in the witness box, to establish that no business/manufacturing activities of photocopiers components were being carried out in the name of M/s. Component Corporation from the given address. All these three witnesses more or less supported the case of CBI and stated that although there was a board affixed on the said property but they had not seen any such activities being carried out from the said premises by accused Girish Arora and Pankaj Arora.
12. So far as the factory premises which as per the accused persons was established by them at A-38, Noida, the prosecution had examined PW-4 Vijay Taneja and PW-5 Mohd. Aslam Khan who appeared and stated that they had not 5 seen any manufacturing activities being carried out from the said premises by the accused persons.
13. Apart from these witnesses, the prosecution had examined PW-8 M.L.Verma from the Shops and Establishment with whom the accused persons had applied for registration of the shop/commercial establishment from the address A-46, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi vide their application Ex.PW.8/C and Ex.PW.8/D, on the basis of which the shop registration certificates were issued. Shri K.C.Tewari was also examined by the prosecution as PW-11 who proved his report and stated that the same were given on the basis of the sign board of the firm being affixed at the given address.
14. All these witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the accused persons, however, nothing material in support of the accused persons that they infact were carrying out the manufacturing/business activities from East of Kailash and were running a factory from Noida, came to light. Further in this particular case, during the course of statement of the accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. they admitted the fact that these certificates were obtained by them for the purpose of importing the photocopying machine and its components on the basis of the open general licence issued to them.
15. The main witnesses of the prosecution in this case were PW-9 Mohd. Ali, who at the relevant point of time was posted at IGI Airport, Air Cargo and had dealt with the bill of entries filed by the accused persons as partner of M/s. Component Corporation. Shri J.P.Singh posted as Inspector Cargo Unit appeared in the witness box as PW-12 and deposed that bill of entries submitted 6 by the accused persons were dealt with by him during the course of his official duties. PW-13 Prabhat Kumar, Assistant Collector, Cargo Unit identified his noting and signatures on the bill of entries Ex.PW.9/1 and Ex.PW.9/4. He deposed that the claim of the accused persons that the goods imported vide these bill of entries, under the open general licence, were found to be false and declaration given by the accused persons were made just to evade the custom duties. This witness further deposed that the claim made by the accused persons that the import of photocopying machine and its components under open general licence for actual user, was found to be false as no manufacturing activities whatsoever were being done by the importers and a misleading statement was deliberately made by the importers, just to evade the custom duties. PW-13 further deposed that during the course of investigations, the premises of the accused persons were also scrutinised during which certain blank invoices from the foreign suppliers were recovered. He further deposed that using these blank invoices, the accused persons had submitted forged invoices bearing under valuation of the goods which on investigations were found to be of a much higher value. Most of these facts when put to the accused were admitted by them during the course of their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. PW-14 and PW15 from the Area Development Office of Industries, appeared and proved the certificates granted by their department to the accused firm.
16. Having regard to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses on record and considering the fact that the accused persons during the course of their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have admitted that they in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched amongst themselves had formed a firm, got the 7 requisite registration certificates from the Shops and Establishment Department and Area Development Office, Noida, on the basis of which they obtained the open general licence for importing photocopying machine and its components. It is further admitted by the accused persons that they had given a declaration that they are the actual user of these components, whereas after importing these components, they have sold the same in open market against premium through Malkiat Singh, who had played his part in the larger conspiracy.
17. Sanction to prosecute the accused persons was granted by the concerned officers and the same has also been admitted by the accused persons to be granted against them.
18. Having regard to the evidence on record coupled with the statement of the accused persons, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to establish its case against all the three accused persons namely Girish Arora, Pankaj Arora and Malikat Singh are accordingly convicted for the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC, r/w 420/471 IPC and for the offence u/s 132/135 of Customs Act. Accused persons are also convicted for the substantive offence u/s 420/471 IPC and 132/135 of the Customs Act.
19. As there is no material on record that the invoices submitted by the accused persons with the department were infact forged by them, therefore, they are not being convicted for the substantive offence u/s 468 IPC.
20. Let they be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in open court (KANWALJEET ARORA)
Dated: 25.08.08 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
DELHI.
8
9