Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Sunil Wadhwani, Manager (Purchase and Imports), Western Electronics Limited, respondent no. 5, is directed against the complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, against the petitioner, the said respondent, and 4 others, for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420/465/467/468/471 I.P.C., and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and Sections 420/465/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the order of the trial court summoning the petitioner ?a the complaint, as an accused person, to stand his trial for the aforesaid offences.

(2) On the basis of information that Ashok Kumar Gupta, respondent no. 2, in the petition, and certain others, were parties to a conspiracy, to commit offences of cheating and forgery, and of use of forged documents as genuine, with a view to fraudulently obtain, on the basis of forged documents and by misrepresentation of facts, import licenses and that they had pursuant to the said conspiracy, illegally obtained an import license, which was sold for a valuable consideration to Western Electronics Ltd., through a broker, Mool Chand Gupta, a case under the aforesaid Sections was registered, and on the conclusion of investigation, by the Central Bureau) of Investigation, the aforesaid complaint was filed in the court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. One Mukesh Kumar Verma was granted pardon, in the course of investigation. In the course of the complaint, it is alleged that after Ashok Kumar Gupta and certain others had obtained the import license, by the commission of the aforesaid offences, on the basis of fraud and forged documents, Ashok Kumar Gupta approached Western Electronics Ltd., a joint stock company, dealing in the manufacture and sale of consumer electronics, through Mool Chand Gupta, a broker, for the sale of the license to the company, and that the license was eventually purchased by the company for a sum of Rs 30,0001-, which was paid by two cheques of Rs. 25,0001 and Rs. 50001- each. It further appears from the complaint that in the course of investigation the purchase of the aforesaid license, and the payment of the consideration, were found duly reflected in the records of the company. It further appears that pursuant to the aforesaid license, a letter of credit was opened by a bank, at the instance of western Electronics Ltd., but meanwhile, Mool Chand Gupta, having become suspicious about the validity of the license, because of an exposure in another case, in winch the license had been transferred by Ashok Kumar Gupta to another firm, Mool Chand Gupta contacted the petitioner and suggested that the letter of credit be cancelled, if opened, on which the transaction with regard to the license was treated as cancelled, and Moot Chand Gupta obtained from Ashok Kumar Gupta the amount af Rs. 30,0001- which had been paid earlier by the company. Para 21 of the complaint runs thus :- "21. That the accused persons Ashok Kumar Gupta (A-1) K. B. Singh Duggal (A-2) Manmohan Lal (A-3) Mukesh Kumar Verma Approver Sunil Wadhwani (A-4) Dayal Singh (A-6) and M/s Western Electronics Ltd. (A-5) entered into criminal conspiracy during 1980-81 at Delhi to commit offences of cheating conspiracy etc. and u/s 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Art 1947 by adopting to illegal means and in pursuance of the same a bogus firm under the name M/s. Jagdambay Book Depot was fluted and an Import license in question was obtained fraudulently on the basis of forged documents and by misrepresentation of facts. The Import license so wrongly obtained was thereafter sold to M/s. Western Electronics Ltd. New Delhi illegally and unauthorisedly in contravention of the provisions of Import Trade Control Order, 1965 and thereby committed offences punishable u/s. 120-B Indian Penal Code r/w Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, arid also substantive offences under Sees. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Act."

(3) On taking cognizance of the complaint, the Court below made a cryptic order that there are "grounds to proceed against all the accused" under all the provisions, alleged in the complaint, and directed that the accused persons be summoned to stand their trial for the aforesaid offences. No witness was examined before the trial court, nor does it appear from the summoning older that the trial court examined any material apart from the complaint.

(4) The petition ex fane proceeds on the basis as if the complaint was of an offence u/s 120-B, read with Section 420/465/467/468/471 Ipo and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and as if there are no allegations of the commission of substantive offences u/s 420/465/467/468/ 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 in the complaint. This assumption was apparently based on the copy of the complaint, enclosed with the petition, which in turn had been allegedly received from the Court with the summons. Para 21 of the complaint, according to this copy, did not mention the substantive offences under these Sections, even though I find from the title of the complaint that the substantive offences are mentioned in addition to the offences of conspiracy. At the hearing of the petition, counsel for the C.B.I., who was himself puzzled, because he had also been working on the basis of the copy of the complaint, supplied by the petitioner, and was therefore, at his wit's end in defending the complaint, and in justifying the order proceeding against the petitioner, without any allegations in the complaint of commission of substantive offences, since he was unable to point to any allegation in the complaint, or in any material with which it was sought to be supported, which may possibly justify the allegation of complicity of the petitioner, and the company, in the conspiracy or in the process leading to the issue of the import license. Learned consel, however, pointed out, after verification from the records of the CBI. that the petitioner had not supplied a correct copy of the petition, and on the complaint, as laid in the court below, there was clear allegation of the commission of substantive offences in addition to the offence of conspiracy.