Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (1) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uash the FIR bearing No. RC SID 2004 E 001 registered by the CBI against the appellants. 2. In order to appreciate as to whether the impugned order suffers from any infirmity, few relevant facts leading to filing of these appeals may have to be noticed. Relevant facts 3. The appellant No. 1-M/s. Bowrings Fine Art Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd. had auctioned a number of paintings on 20th November, 2002. Two paintings titled "Reconciled" by Frederico Andreotti and "The kill" by George D. Rowlandson were purchased by M/s. Tony Haynes of England. The said two paintings were to be exported. The Customs authorities had detained these paintings on the suspicion that the said paintings were antiques within the meaning of the provisions of the A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder dated 22-9-2004 passed by the Adjudicating Authority directing confiscation of the said two paintings under the Customs Act. In the said writ petition, the petitioner clearly admitted the factum of CBI registering FIR and copy of the said FIR was also made available for the perusal of the Court. It may be noted that by the time the said Writ Petition came to be filed, CBI had filed its charge sheet on 24-8-2004 yet the petitioner had not chosen to challenge the FIR and the charge sheet filed by the CBI. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a consent order directing the competent authority to pass a fresh order on the basis of fresh report submitted by a fresh Committee. It was agreed by the Archaeological Survey of India in that W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed on the ground that the basis of the FIR i.e. the earlier report of Archaeological Survey of India has been rendered redundant in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 24-3-2005. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal. 8. Ms. Tasneem Ahamdi, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the FIR registered by the CBI based on the earlier report of Archaeological Survey of India has been rendered redundant. The basis of the FIR does not survive in view of the order of the High Court dated 24-3-2005 and therefore, there cannot be any prosecution on the basis of the earlier report of the ASI. 9. Shri A. Mariarputham, learned senior counsel app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arlier report and "if a new report is passed, the earlier report will not be given effect to". The earlier report has not been set aside by the High Court and obviously to continue its operation, a new order is to be made by the Director General, ASI which according to the learned counsel for the appellants is not so far passed. At any rate, all these pleas may be advanced, if at all, available to the appellants, in the pending criminal case. It is not necessary to restate that the observation made by the High Court that it will not be necessary for the parties to give effect to the earlier report binds only the parties to the proceedings and admittedly, the CBI has not been impleaded as party respondent in that Writ Petition. 11. On .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arputham based on the Minutes of the Expert Committee dated 12-4-2010 and the order of Director General, ASI suggested that the prosecution of the appellants may be confined only with regard to the painting "Reconciled" which alone held to be antiquity. It was a fair suggestion but the learned counsel for the appellants expressed her reservation as regards the very validity of said minutes and order of Director General and wanted the question to be left open. We accordingly express no opinion as regards the validity of the minutes and order dated 12-4-2010 of Director General, Archaeology. In the circumstances, we wish to express no opinion on the same except to observe that the defence of the appellants based on the present report during t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates