Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
28. On this point, the prosecution evidence P.W.1 to 3 is important to discuss. They have deposed about file containing documents by the accused as well as covering letter import/export code number. The entire evidence of these witnesses noticed that, the competent authority has satisfied the documents submitted by the accused for issuance of import/export code number. On the basis of documents, the competent authority has issued import/export code number. These witnesses are testified by the accused counsel. At that point of time, P.W.1 deposed that, he was not working at the relevant point of time when the import/export code number was issued to the accused. As such, I would like to mention the evidence of this witness is not material to discuss in detail as he has deposed on the basis of documents marked at Ex.P.1. As such, the evidence of this witness is clearly hear say in nature.
29. P.W.2 also deposed during course of evidence that, he has issued import/export code number and license, the same is marked at Ex.P.1(h). In the cross-examination, he deposed that, the documents submitted by the accused is verified by him and submitted the application to the higher authority for sanction of code number. By this contradiction, it is clearly noticed that, P.W.2 is not competent person to issue import/export code number as marked at Ex.P.1(h). The evidence of this witness is also not material to discuss in detail as his evidence discloses that, he has forwarded the documents to the higher authority.
30. P.W.3, though he has deposed that, he has scrutinized documents and issued the certificate at Ex.P.1(b) on 19.03.2009. However, there is a contradiction in the deposition of these witnesses as to who issued the import/export code number. The evidence of these witnesses reveals that, though the competent authority had issued the import/export code number to the accused. However, they were not able to say that, the documents submitted by the accused are false or fabricated and he tried to mislead the authority and obtained license etc. As such, in my opinion, the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 as well as evidence of P.W.24 - I.O. discloses that, the prosecution is not able to made out the case that, the accused has obtained import/export code number by mislead as stated in the charge sheet allegation. As per the deposition of P.W.1 to 3 as extracted in the evidence, merely established the witnesses for identify of signature and marked the documents, itself does not mean that, the accused has violated the Rules and Regulations as mentioned in the license. The evidence of these 3 witnesses clearly noticed that, it is not established the ingredients of the charge sheet allegations as stated by the prosecution.
III. Documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : File pertaining to issue import/export code number of M/s Zandra Trading Company Ex.P.1(a) : Order sheets Ex.P.1(b) : Allotment letter Ex.P.1(c) : Interview Enquiry slip Ex.P.1(d) : Request letter dt. 06.03.2009 Ex.P.1(e) : Application form ANF 2A Form Ex.P.1(f): : Certificate of import/export code along with PAN, Voter ID etc. Ex.P.1(g) : Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.1(h) : Importer exporter code Ex.P.1(i) : Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.1(j) : Deficiency letter Ex.P.1(k) : Reply dated 20.12.2006 with pan Ex.P.1(l) : T.R.challan for Rs.1000/-