Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. Further, the prosecution has examined C.W.18 Sri. T. Rajah Balaji as P.W.10 who is investigation officer. In his evidence, he deposed about recording of statements of witnesses and filing of charge sheet against the accused persons. He further deposed that upon scrutiny of the records collected from the Central Excise department, he found that two principal modus operandi adopted by M/s Japan Mannequin Company owned/control jointly by accused and 1 and 3 had indulged in under invoicing and in creating dummy company that existed only on paper by the name of M/s Favourite Mannequin Company and he found that when the matter was before Sri. M.V. Reddy the then Collector of Central Excise, accused No.1 and 3 had make that daily wage workers in M/s Japan Mannequin Company to sign on affidavits containing wrong and incorrect information to show wrongly that they were working for the dummy company M/s Favourite Mannequin Company. In the cross examination of P.W.10, he admitted that he has not personally present and aware of the proceedings taken before the Central Excise department which is quasi judicial proceedings. Further, he admitted that he is deposing first time before this Court whatever he stated in his chief examination. Further P.W.10 admitted that he has not collected the registered documents of M/s Japan Mannequin company to show that who were all partners and who was running the day to day affairs of the company. Hence, in the evidence of P.W.10, though he has stated that he found that accused No.1 and 3 were jointly owned/controlled the accused No.2 partnership firm based on the documents collected from the Central Excise department, but, in his cross examination, he clearly admitted that he has not collected the registered documents of accused No.2 partnership firm to show that who were all partners and who was running the day to day affairs of the company. Hence, in the absence of particular documents, the Court has to rely on the oral evidence adduced before the Court.

32. In the evidence of P.W.10, he states that upon scrutiny of the records collected from the Central Excise department and examination of P.W.3, he found that when the matter was before the Collector of Central Excise, the accused No.1 and 3 also derived assistance and aid from accused No.6 in making affidavits containing wrong and incorrect information that he had perform pooja frequently in the dummy company M/s Favourite Mannequin Company. Hence, as per evidence of P.W.10, the accused No.3 and deceased accused No.1 taken the assistance of the accused No.6 in making affidavit containing wrong and incorrect information that he had performed pooja frequently in the dummy company.

35. Ex.P.10 is the affidavit sworn by Deepak Sharma S/o Mohanlal Sharma wherein he states that he is a priest by profession and he used to go for pooja wherever called and at No.27 K. Kamaraj Road there was a Putla manufacturing unit by name M/s Favourite Mannequin Company to which place he used to go every Friday for performing pooja and the owner of the said unit was Sri Nanik Mehboobani and there were about 7 to 8 workers working over there and the factory was situated in the 1st floor. Hence as per prosecution case, accused No.6 filed the affidavit before adjudicating authority containing wrong information. The prosecution has to prove the the contents of Ex.P.10 affidavit is wrong and false information given by the accused No.6 in the said affidavit. The evidence of P.W.4 only in respect of purchase of stamp papers by Deepak Sharma, but there was no identification of accused No.6 by the P.W.4.

101. As per above decision, the statement of witnesses based on information received from others is inadmissible. Instant case, the P.W.10 in his evidence deposed that upon scrutiny of records collected and examination of P.W.3 he found that accused No.3 had make the daily wages workers of accused No.2 company to sign on the affidavits containing wrong and incorrect information and he has also taken aid from the accused No.6 in making affidavits containing wrong and incorrect information. Hence, P.W.10 deposed on the basis of examination of P.W.3. As discussed above, P.W.3 has not deposed anything against the accused No.3 and 6 in his evidence in respect to alleged offences. Hence, the evidence of P.W.10 based on information received from the P.W.3 is inadmissible. Hence, the above decision is applicable to case on hand.