TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent – Decided against petitioner. - Crl.O.P.No.5584 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2015 - R. Subbiah, J. For the Appellant : Mr Su Srinivasan, Asst. Solicitor General of India For the Respondent : Mr R Gandhi, SC, for Mr R G Narendran ORDER The present criminal original petition has been filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.3860 of 2015 dated 13.2.2015 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 2. The petitioner is the complainant and the respondent is the accused in File No.VIII/48/03/2014 DRI CRU, on the file of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Coimbatore. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:- (a) On the basis of the specific intelligence that M/s.P.V.Spinning Mill India (P) Ltd., Sathyamangalam Taluk had imported capital goods i.e., machineries required for the manufacture of cotton yarn, under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme under various EPCG licences and failed to meet the export obligation fixed at the time of import of the machineries and managed to get the export obligation discharge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., imported / indigenously procured capital goods under EPCG scheme, installed the machineries at their premises, but failed to export goods manufactured out of the machineries so imported to meet the export obligation fixed at the time of import. The respondent had also fabricated documents and submitted to JDFT for getting EODC against the EPCG licences under investigation. The shipping bills filed before the JDFT for getting the EODC were fabricated documents and the export obligation claimed to have been met through third party shipping bills, were not the exports of the respondent and the result is the respondent had not fulfilled the export obligation. The respondent neither exported any goods manufactured with the use of the capital goods imported under EPCG scheme and realised foreign exchange nor made any exports through third parties viz., merchant exporters from the goods manufactured with the use of capital goods imported under EPCG scheme and installed at his premises. As the respondent has not fulfilled the export obligation, the availment of EPCG scheme by the respondent has become wrong and the respondent is liable to pay differential duty amount of ₹ 4,12, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully cooperating with the petitioner and a mere reading of the mahazar clearly establishes the said fact. Absolutely, no ground has been made out for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The main submission of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioner is that the Court below has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent mainly on the ground that the prosecution is not mandatory under the Customs Act, 1962 and all the machineries have been seized by the department for addressing its claim and the documents and other papers were already seized by the department. The reasonings given by the learned Judge are factually incorrect. When an offence is investigated by the officers of Customs, right from the rank of the Inspectors to Assistant Commissioners, if any person involved in the offence is not cooperating with the investigation, engaging himself in tampering with evidence or intimidating the witnesses, then the investigating officer is empowered to arrest the person for free and fair investigation. Para 15 of Chapter 30: Offences and Penal Provisions of the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana and (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 652 - Hazari Lal Das v. State of West Bengal and another, submitted that only if the respondent abused the anticipatory bail granted to him, the same could be cancelled. In the instant case, absolutely, there is no allegation against the respondent that he is abusing the concession given to him. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record. 8. Though several submissions were made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India stating that the reasons assigned by the Court below for granting anticipatory bail are not factually correct, in my considered opinion, the said submissions made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India will not serve as a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent. Once anticipatory bail is granted by the Court below, it could be cancelled only if the respondent abuses the said concession. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349 - Dolat Ram and others v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
