Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2006 and 20.12.2006 passed by the Ld. ACMM whereby the Ld. ACMM convicted the appellant U/s 120B IPC r/w section 420/471 IPC and section 5 of Import & Export (Control) Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­, in default one month SI for the offence punishable U/s 120 B r/w section 420/471 IPC and section 5 of Import & Export (Control) Act 1947, to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/­ in default one month SI for the offence punishable U/s 420 IPC, to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­ in default one month SI for the offence punishable U/s 471 IPC and further to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­ in default one month SI for the offence punishable U/s 5 of Import & Export (Control) Act.

3. After filing of the complaint, accused persons were summoned. The appellant represented M/s Sanyog International (Accused no. 6) also . On an application of CBI, admission denial of the documents filed by the prosecution was conducted wherein accused persons admitted certain documents on 16.8.1989. Pre­charge evidence was recorded by the complainant in trial court wherein the complainant examined 30 witnesses. During the proceedings in trial court, one of the accused G.D. Sarkar expired and proceedings against him stands abated. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 15.9.2001 framed charge U/s 120B IPC r/w section 420/471 IPC as well as U/s 5 of Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial. The accused persons were provided with an option U/s 246 Cr.P.C. to further cross examine the prosecution witnesses which the appellant duly availed. CBI further examined one more witness Sh. N.C. Jain, Retired Assistant Collector of Customs during the after charge evidence. After completion of evidence, statement of appellant U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Appellant further chose to lead evidence in defence however since despite given opportunities, the appellant failed to lead evidence in defence, therefore, defence evidence was closed. After hearing the Ld. PP for CBI and counsel for appellant, Ld. ACMM convicted the appellant and sentenced him accordingly. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.

7. On the other hand, Ld. PP for CBI submits that the offence took place in the year 1985­87 and at that time it was the offence under the Import and Export Act and the appellant does not deserve any leniency.

8. The Import and Export Act stands abolished in the year 1991 and has been repealed by Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act 1992. Though under the 'Savings' clause of the new act, the proceedings already commenced under the old act shall continue as if the act has not been repealed, and therefore, the proceedings against the appellant continued but court also cannot overlook the fact that now we are in 2010 and almost two decades have passed after the repeal of the old act. Under the new act, the act of the appellant does not constitute any criminal offence and due to the liberalization policies of the Government, now for the violation of any provision of Foreign Trade Act, fine has been provided and not the imprisonment. The appellant has already undergone the agony of trial for the last 23 years and is no longer doing the business of import and export. So far as other substantive offence U/s 420/471 IPC are concerned, these were also committed in order to commit the offence under Import­Export Act.

9. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant has been undergoing trial for the last 23 years and the act under which he has been convicted stands repealed about two decades before and also there is no prior history of conviction/involvement of the appellant in any other case, the appellant is sentenced to undergo probation for a period of one year on furnishing a probation bond of Rs. 10,000/­ with one surety of like amount and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­ (as already deposited),in default SI for one month for the offence punishable U/s 120 B r/w section 420/471 IPC and section 5 of Import & Export (Control) Act 1947, to undergo probation for a period of one year on furnishing a probation bond of Rs. 10,000/­ with one surety of like amount and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­(as already deposited),in default SI for one month for the offence punishable U/s 420 IPC, to undergo probation for a period of one year on furnishing a probation bond of Rs. 10,000/­ with one surety of like amount and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­ (as already deposited),in default SI for one month for the offence punishable U/s 471 IPC and further to undergo probation for a period of one year on furnishing a probation bond of Rs. 10,000/­ with one surety of like amount and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­(as already deposited),in default SI for one month for the offence punishable U/s 5 of Import & Export (Control) Act subject to the satisfaction of court concerned.