Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Export outstanding in Enforcement vs . M/S. Next One & Ors. on 21 April, 2007Matching Fragments
PW2 Sh. J.D. Ahuja Asst. Manager RBI of India has brought the statement of exports outstanding proceeds in respect of M/S Next One and has proved the I.E.C. Number 0594063001 which is ExPW2/A. He has further stated that as per record party has not applied for extension for relisation of export proceeds. According to him, the statement prepared on the basis of the floppy supplied by the exporters banker i.e. : 6 : authorised foreign exchange dealer is ExPW2/A .
Sh. A.K. Tyagi Officer from Canara Bank has been examined as PW4. He has deposed in his examination in chief that he has brought XOS report regarding outstanding export proceeds in respect of firm M/ S Next One. The report : 9 : is ExPW4/A. He also brought GR1 forms ExPW4/B1 to B74 export proceeds. According to him, the GR1 forms are deposited in RBI Bank generally after receiving the outstanding exports proceeds.
: 24 : PW2 J.D. Ahuja is the Assistant Manager, RBI who has placed before this court the statement of export proceeds outstanding in respect of the firm M/s. Next One the IEC number of which is 0594063001 is Ex.PW2/A and is running into three computer sheets bearing the signatures of Assistant General Manager at point A1 and A2. He has identified the signatures of Assistant General Manager in his official capacity having seen her writing and signing. According to him, as per the record the party had not applied to extension for realization of export proceeds which statement is Ex.PW2/A and was prepared on the basis of the floppy supplied by the exporters banker i.e. authorized foreign exchange dealer. In his crossexamination a suggestion has been made by the counsel for the accused that the accused no.2 Romesh Sharma was in jail for the last 2 years due to which reason he could not apply for extension to which the witness has claimed that it is not necessary that the person should apply personally and it can be applied by anyone. The said witness is unable to tell who were the partners of the firm and : 25 : has stated that he has no personal knowledge of the case and has made statement only on the basis of official record. The floppy in question has also been produced in the court on the basis of which the statement Ex.PW2/A was prepared after pre charge evidence and according to the witness the floppy was supplied by the Canera Bank i.e. the exporter bank which was received twice in a year regarding the outstanding exports. He has further testified that a notice had been issued with regard to the outstanding export proceeds as on 31.12.99 which notice was issued on 16.10.2000. According to the witness, the outstanding amount was Rs. 1,22,94,779/ but he is unable to tell the outstanding as on 31.12.99 since the record has not been called to the court with regard to the same though he admits that there was an outstanding as on 30.6.98 but he is unable to give the details of the same for want of relevant records. He is also unable to tell if there was any outstanding as on 30.6.1997 as the relevant record was not called to the court and he has specifically clarified that the relevant records which have been produced are only those which have been : 26 : summoned by the court. He has very specifically stated that as per the available record with him the firm M/s. Next One did not apply for extension which fact is apparent from the record in relation to 31.3.99. According to him they have not sent any letters for the partners of the firm but the letter had been sent only to the firm though the witness in his crossexamination is unable to whether the receipt and dispatch register is still in the RBI and who was the concerned officer for dispatch yet the record reveals that no evidence in rebuttal has been lead by the accused. The witness PW2 has admitted that the latter dated 16.10.2000 has not been written by him and has stated that it had been issued by one S.C. Khurana. He has denied the suggestion that the documents can be changed.
PW1 has also proved the partnership letter and the partnership deed and also the signatures of Romesh Sharma and Ajay Nayyar on the partnership deed which documents are Ex.PW1/A12, PW1/A13, PW1/A14 and PW1/A15 respectively. The account opening form is Ex.PW1/17 and letter of authority in favour of the present accused in respect of the account/ locker CA6317 and signatures of accused Romesh Sharma on behalf of the firm M/s. Next One has also been proved by PW1 vide PW1/18. The earlier deed of : 45 : dissolution has also been placed on record. The partnership deed and letter NG 103 which is the account opening form has been proved by PW1. The witness from the RBI i.e. PW2 has proved the statement of export outstanding proceeds in respect of the firm which is Ex.PW2/A and has specifically stated that the party did not apply for extension of the realization of the export proceeds. He has also proved the statement on the basis of the floppy. Further PW4 A.K. Tyagi has proved the XOS report regarding the outstanding proceeds in respect of the firm which is Ex.PW4/A alongwith the GR1 forms which are Ex.PW4/B1 to PW4/B4. There is a presumption of the correctness of this record being regularly maintained in the official course of business which presumption the accused has not been able to rebut. Hence, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond doubt the outstanding export proceeds in respect of the firm M/s. Next One of which accused Romesh Sharma was a partner.