Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The petitioners claim that vide letter dated April 20, 1998, a complaint was lodged with the SHO Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh that "certain documents/papers/invoices signed and unsigned are missing from the factory/office ......" On April 22, 1998, at about 8 AM, a raiding party headed by an Assistant Commissioner (Preventive) and the other staff carried out a search operation "under threat and coercion." No "incriminating documents or any stock or material unaccounted for in the factory or office of the petitioner-company" were found. After the search, the raiding party "prepared a Resumption Memo of the documents which were taken by them along with......" A copy of the Resumption Memo has been produced as Annexure P.2. It is alleged that "the record from Sr. No. 3 to Sr. No. 45 were in the form of statutory books of accounts for the year 1993-94 till 1997-98. One file containing gate passes and another containing certain loose papers as are mentioned at Sr. No. 1 and 2 of the Resumption Memo were never recovered from the factory of the petitioners' company at the time of search operation in the presence of the Managing Director Shri Mohinder Gupta. How these documents came in possession of the raiding party is a mystery." It is further alleged that the raiding party "recorded the statement of the Managing Director." It was not voluntary but "dictated". It was got signed "under threat of arrest etc." A copy of the statement has been produced as Annexure P.3 with the writ petition. Since it was not voluntary, Mr. Mohinder Gupta (petitioner No. 2) "retracted the above noted statement vide his letter dated April 23, 1998 written to the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs and also to respondent No. 2 with copy to respondent No. 4." Copies of these communications have been produced as Annexure P.4 collectively. It is further alleged that the efforts of the raiding party were frustrated as no incriminating material was found. To "save their face, the raiding party asked the Managing Director Shri Mohinder Gupta and the only other Director of the petitioners' company namely Shri Harish Kumar to accompany them to their office at Chandigarh at about 3.30 PM." On reaching Chandigarh, they were threatened with arrest and "at about 9 PM, the respondents forced Shri Harish Kumar to get his statement recorded." Even this statement was not voluntary but as dictated by the respondents. A copy of this statement has been produced as Annexure P.5. It was even admitted as correct by Mr. Mohinder Gupta, petitioner No. 2. A copy of the summon dated April 22, 1998 issued to Mr. Harish Kumar for appearing at Chandigarh, has been produced as Annexure P. 6. He had sent a communication on April 23, 1998 retracting from the statement.

37. A copy of this report has been produced as Annexure P.1. It only says that "Our certain blank signed unsigned papers are missing." What is the nature of the papers ? How many ? Missing since when ? Is anybody suspected ? Are the documents signed ? By whom ? There is no indication. Who has lodged the report ? Even the name has not been mentioned. Only Director has been written. This report as produced with the writ petition does not have even a date on it. Nothing has been produced on the record to show that it was actually received by the SHO or that any further action was taken in the matter. Still further, when the premises were visited by the staff of the respondents, it is not shown that the existence of any complaint regarding missing documents was brought to their notice. In fact, a specific plea has been taken by the respondents that they have read about this report only in the writ petition. Neither orally nor in writing were they ever informed that certain documents were missing. The inevitable conclusion is that the report has been prepared for the purpose of making out a case in this petition.