Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Arun Maity appearing on behalf of the CBI submits that a reliable source of information was received by the CBI, ACB, Kolkata and upon verification it was found that the Directors of M/s Reshmi raising Metalics Limited (petitioners) entered into a criminal conspiracy with unknown officers of South Eastern Railway and in showing Ex-

Iron ore for domestic purpose during 2011-12, though they have used the said iron ore for commercial purpose; thereby the petitioners in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy with some officers of Eastern Railway evaded a huge amount of freight charge by giving false declaration to use the proceed in domestic purpose. Thus there were consequential wrongful gains to the petitioners.

10. Mr. Maity submits allegations of the two FIRs are not at all similar. The date of occurrence, the time period of occurrence, place of occurrence, quantum of money involved are separate and distinct thus, the subsequent FIR cannot be said to be a second FIR.

11. Mr. Maity further argued that the pendency of civil suit before Civil Court cannot be a ground for quashing an FIR. Mr. Maity further argued that the object of civil suit is to recover the money which does not tantamount to punishment to bring the offender under the clutches of law. Mr. Maity further argued that mere institution and /or pendency of the civil suit cannot be a bar to any proceedings of a criminal case and contentions thereby when sufficient substances are collected during the investigation. The argument which was sought to be advanced on the freight charges which is not similar in case of domestic consumption and also in case of commercial use, cannot be said to be a bar in proceeding with the criminal proceeding by initiation of FIR in as much as the rate for domestic consumption is less than that of the commercial one but if with intention to cheat the Railways by giving false declaration that it would be for domestic purpose and thereby paying lesser amount than that of commercial one and by actually using it for commercial purposes making unlawful gain by such transactions and causing wrongful loss to public money amounts to criminal offence which has been established during investigation on the basis of evidences/materials collected in the case under challenge before this Hon'ble Court and as such the freight charges, unless it is said to have been equal in both the cases, the accused persons should not have given false declaration. As such, the argument on freight charges as to the policy decision of the Railways is a subject matter of challenge before a different forum and is not to be used as a mechanism for quashing of criminal proceedings. Assuming but not admitting for the sake of argument that some materials collected in connection with the first case has been referred to as they are relevant pieces of evidence, but not the fact in issue for adjudication nor in the other separate FIR, these are not the fact in issue to be considered during trial although those are relevant facts and as such simply because of reference of certain documents in the separate FIR subsequently made and charge sheet filed on basis thereof cannot be said to be the second FIR.

It is alleged that M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. transported the following quantities of iron ore through rail transport under false declaration that the transported iron would be exclusively used for "Domestic Consumption at their manufacturing unit located at Gokulpur, West Bengal from May, 2008 to March, Duration Chargeable Weight From May-2008 to March, 8,72,031,95 tonnes April 2009 to March, 2010 9,67,581.15 Tonnes It is further alleged that an overwhelming portion of the said iron ore, transported by M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. under declaration of domestic consumption, had neither been used for "Domestic Production nor reflected in "Additional Accretion of Inventory" in their plant. The quantity of iron ore illegally exported or used by the said company for purposes "other than domestic use" is given in the table below:

22. In this particular case it appears that the CBI has initially filed the FIR being RC 02 of 2012 dated 10.01.2012 alleging commission of offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy by the present petitioner with other officers of Railways who alleged to have evaded actual charges in violation of Rates Circular of Ministry of Railways covering for the period of 2006-2011. Subsequently FIR No. RC-15 of 2014 dated 14.06.2014 was filed wherein same allegations were levelled against the petitioners for the financial year 2011 to 2012. The basic allegation against the present petitioner is that they transported huge Iron ore in a concessional rate with a false declaration of "Domestic Use". I find nothing new in the allegations of subsequent FIR being RC 15 of 2014 dated 14.06.2014 except the money involved and period of alleged commission of offence in the 1st FIR. It further appears to me that the CBI themselves used the documents of first FIR in the subsequent FIR, which proves that they are only filing second FIR for new financial year.