Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

JAMES SAMUAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND 1

2017 (1) TMI 480 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Prosecution proceedings against the central excise officers - allowing conditional exemption to the unit illegally - Issuance of forged document in favour of the Company though there was no commercial production by the Company - Criminal misconduct - compromise or compounding of offence - Held that: - under Section 13(1)(d), the basic requirement is to the effect that the accused himself should have obtained either for himself or for any other person either any valuable thing or pecuniary advant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the form of breach of rules or technical offences - In the present case, though some documents are alleged to be forged practically there is no forgery of any documents. It is submitted by the petitioners that, in fact an advance appreciation of work by the Company as per project report happens as per fixed schedule was disclosed. However for one reason or another if such time schedule could not be adhered to either during installation or during production it may not amount to committing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Y JASANI AND MR.DIGANT M. POPAT, ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR RC KODEKAR, ADVOCATE COMMON CAV JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani and Mr.Digant M. Popat for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel Mr. R.C. Kodekar for CBI. Perused the record. 2. These two petitions are though by different petitioners, they are arising out of the same FIR and having common and similar disputes between the parties and therefore, they are heard and decided together by common judgment. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 2016 namely; James Samual is nowhere connected either with the tax benefit claimed by the Company or with the paper work carried out by another petitioner viz. Babubhai Chhotalal Makwana, an Officer of the Central Excise Department. However, the only allegation against him in the FIR so also in the Chargesheet is to the effect that he has issued forged document in favour of the Company though there was no commercial production by the Company. Whereas, perusal of allegation in the Chargesheet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

legation is only to the effect that though actual supply was of 50 MM thickness MS plates on 4.1.2006, the invoice issued by the Company was for clearance of 06 MS plates of 35 and 40 mm thickness and, thereby, when Company was not able to start production of requisite product, the petitioner firm has tried to show that it has received a proper production as per their order. 4. In any case, this allegation does not amount to any particular offence, inasmuch as, there is no evidence except such b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

05, invoice is dated 28.12.2005 and supply of goods is dated 4.1.2006. So far as measurement in terms of thickness of plates are concerned, when immediately goods is supplied practically petitioner has no chance either to accept or to reject the goods but it cannot be said that there was no production even if goods were having some discrepancy in measurement. Therefore there is no clinching evidence to confirm that petitioner has committed any offence as alleged in such chargesheet i.e. either u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ested ₹ 45.46 crores and started production and, therefore, eligible for exemption of Central Excise Tax under the Notification. Whereas, according to the Investigating Agency, no commercial production was started on that day. Even if it is to be presumed that on date of such report by the petitioner, the Commercial production was not started, as recorded hereinabove, the fact remains that production was already started on 27.12.2005 which was certified by officer of equivalent cadre being .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Company as per his visit dated 27.12.2005. Such report No.IV-16-162- TECH-2005 dated 2.1.2006 is at page 75 / A wherein against the name of the Company, the date of commencement of commercial production is disclosed as 27.12.2005 so also the date of visit as 27.12.2005. 6. Therefore, what is submitted by the petitioner is quite simple and is to the effect that in-fact he has relied upon the documents produced before him regarding investment by the Company which is disclosed as per the Report of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ceived any financial benefit since it has on its own declaration to the Department stated that now they are not entitled to the tax benefit and even, thereafter, Department has penalized them by imposing penalty of ₹ 50,000/- for each of the accused who are concerned with the Company and came forward to settle the issue with the Department. 8. So far as petitioner Babubhai Chhotalal Makwana is concerned, he has been charged with Sections of Indian Penal Code as stated hereinabove so also f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ould have obtained either for himself or for any other person either any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage either by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position and without any public interest. Therefore, when there is no allegation about any such fact, it can be said that there is no prima-facie evidence regarding criminal misconduct as alleged. 10. Learned advocate for the petitioner is relying upon the decision in the case of Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab reported in 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cial duty, inasmuch as, on the contrary it is the basic requirement of the Act that if somebody while holding office as a public servant or by abusing his position as public servant obtains any benefit either for himself or for any other person in terms of valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Therefore, it is obvious that allegation against the petitioner is with respect to performance of his official duty and hence in absence of sanction so also even prima-facie evidence regarding benefit if .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Sthal Public Limited which name was changed to M/s.Welspun Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) has filed an application for exemption of Excise duty, pursuant to the notification dated 31st July, 2001 by the Central Government offering exemption from the excise duty to certain units under specific terms and conditions. It is undisputed fact that said factory has its units at Anjar in Kutch and for the benefit of the Company, while applying for such exemption, the Compan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re not fully installed and the unit was operated only for limited production and that it was the only possible production at the time of inspection i.e. 2nd January, 2006 and thereby there is no possibility of any more production and therefore the disclosure by the Company through its officers was not only false but fraudulent in as much as they wanted to declare themselves eligible under the terms and conditions of the notification dated 31st July, 2001, so as to get exemption from the payment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat several documents are manipulated to get the exemption from excise duty and hence investigation was conducted, wherein it has been revealed that several documents are forged and fabricated and therefore the complaint was lodged against the Company on 31st July, 2006. After investigation, CBI has submitted its report and filed a complaint against several accused under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 511, 120(b) of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corrup .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ain terms and conditions of the notification under reference. But, mainly it was found that the contents of such communication are not correct. 15. Amongst the accused, the Managing Director of the Company namely B.K. Goenka had come forward and discussed the dispute with the department of Customs and Excise conveying that it was a bonafide error or mistake on their part and therefore he would like to settle the dispute with the department. It cannot be ignored that the basic ingredient of such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efit to the Company would be ultimately to its shareholders and not to any particular individual in terms of any fix amount. 16. Pursuant to such attempt and exercise by B.K. Goenka, the Managing Director of the Company, the Customs and Excise Department had; considering the bonafides of the Company and its office bearers, so also officers; agreed to settle the dispute and therefore now it would not be necessary to recollect all the minute details of the F.I.R and charge-sheet, or the activities .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng authority while recording the findings makes it clear that the applicant before it i.e. M/s Welspun Corporation Ltd., Shri B K Goenka Managing Director of M/s Welspun Corporation Ltd. and Shri Mahesh Khemka Vice President of M/s Welspun Corporation Ltd. have disclosed true facts relating to the case and therefore the Chief Commissioner granted them immunity from prosecution under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. While granting such immunity, it has been recorded that the basis on wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion that when department by which the proceeding has been initiated has compounded the offence and that too by imposing condition to pay the amount for such compounding and thereby when the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise compounded the offence subject to the payment of ₹ 50,000/- by each of the applicant before it and that such amount is deposited by the concerned persons / accused; there is no reason to proceed further in criminal trial when the department is not going to come and p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CBI. The perusal of the judgment dated 10th April,2015, is on record at Annexure P-20 in such petition makes it clear that the Co-ordinate Bench has not only quashed and set aside the FIR qua the petitioner before it namely B.K. Goenka but has categorically observed that the purpose of compounding of offence against the payment of compounding amount is to prevent litigation and encourage early settlement of dispute as held by Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. U .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case, the FIR came to be registered against one of the petitioners namely; B. C. Macwana, the then Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Rajkot, M/s. Welspun Gujarat Sthal Rohren Limited and also against present petitioner namely; James Samual for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 511 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the office .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pany has not received any wrongful gain on the basis of its earlier application dated 24.12.2005 and therefore, no pecuniary loss is caused to the Department. Thus, the ingredients of the alleged offence punishable u/s. 420 of IPC are not attracted. 19. It is also clear from the record and more particularly from the order dated 19.09.2008 passed by the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise that when the Central Excise Department had initiated the proceedings under Section 9 of the Central Excise Ac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 158, The Hon ble Supreme Court, in para 6, observed as under: 6. The guidelines for compounding are contained in the Circular No. 54/2005-Cus dated 30th December, 2005.Central Government had brought in to force the Customs ( Compounding of Offences) Rules 2005 (in- short the Custom Rules ) and Central Excise (Compounding of Offences ) Rules 2005) (in short the Central Excise Rules ) with effect from 30th December, 2005. the purpose of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e civil issues and, therefore, the First Information Report was erroneously issued and was totally unwarranted. From the aforesaid judgment, the proposition that follows in the instant case is that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 issued by the Government of India was a voluntary scheme whereby if the disputed demand is settled by the Authority and pending proceedings are withdrawn by an importer shall be dropped and the importer shall be immuned from the penal proceedings under any law in fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y when they had been honorably exonerated by the Collector of Customs by their adjudication and further the GCS of which one of the appellants is the General Secretary in which capacity he is accused in the present case was granted amnesty under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. In our opinion, the present case does not warrant subjecting a citizen especially senior citizens of the age of 92 & 70 years to fresh investigation and prosecution on an incident or fact situation giving rise to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

violating the provisions of actual user condition as per Import Export Policy and Customs Notification No. 279/83 dated 30.9.1983 and Customs Notification No. 64/88 dated 1.3.1988 during the year 1987-90, despite acknowledging the fact that Customs Duty has been paid by the appellants to the Customs Department and settled and that commission of offences under Section 120B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. 30.In our view, under the penal law, there is no concept of vic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fact and import of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, in our view, is that once the said Scheme is availed of and all the formalities complied with including the payment of the duty, the immunity granted under the provisions of the Customs Act,1962 also extends to such offences that may prima facie be made out on identical allegations i.e. of evasion of Customs Duty and violation of any Notification issued under the said Act. 22. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the learned Counsels are ri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inted as an agent of any mine. Also, the complaint does not allege or state anywhere that G.N. Verma acted or purported to act on behalf of the owner of the mine or that he took part in the management, control, supervision or direction of any mine. In fact his duties and responsibilities have not been described in the complaint. In the absence of G.N.Verma s duties having been spelt out in the complaint, it is not possible to say whether he was merely an administrative head of Karkata Colliery b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct, the Rules, Regulations, Orders made thereunder. 19. It has been laid down, in the context of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal reported in (2010) 2 GLH 766 that Section 141 is a penal provision creating a vicarious liability. It was held as follows: (SCC p. 336, para 13) 13. … It is therefore, not sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

p. 345, para 39) 39. (I) The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no presumption that every Director knows about the transaction. 20. Insofar as the criminal complaint is concerned, it does not contain any allegation against G.N. Verma. The only statement concerning him is that he was the Chief General Manager/deemed agent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urt in Harmeet Singh Paintal (though in another context) would be squarely applicable. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that on the facts of this case and given the absence of any allegation in the complaint filed against him no case for proceeding against G.N. Verma has been made out. 25. On the facts of this case, we would need to unreasonably stretch the law to include G.N. Verma as a person vicariously responsible for the lapse that occurred in the mine resulting in a fatal acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

etitioners cannot be made vicariously liable for the act and/or omission on the part of the Company for the offence punishable under the provisions of the IPC or Prevention of Corruption Act when there is no evidence against them to prove such offences. Whereas Department has already compounded the offence if any committed by the Company. 25. The contention of the learned advocate Shri Kodekar appearing for respondent No.2 - CBI is that petitioners were members of the team of the Company which h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to commit the alleged offence. 26. In fact no specific role is attributed to each of the petitioner with regard to the alleged offence. Further, the Company has also decided to withdraw the application given for getting the benefit as per the Notification dated 31.07.2001 and therefore the Company has given an application for withdrawal on 17.07.2006 i.e. before the registration of the FIR. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed the alleged offence. Moreover, it is not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

In view of the aforesaid discussion, when it is prima facie proved that the petitioner has not wrongfully gained anything and/or any wrongful loss is caused to the Department and the Company and its officers including the petitioners have been granted immunity, in the opinion of this Court, there is no need to continue with the criminal prosecution against the present petitioners. Moreover, neither in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet any specific allegations are leveled against the petitioners t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

)/2008 - GNR and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. Rule is made absolute. 29. The petitioners are also relying on the following cases which are confirming same principles that prosecution and proceedings after compounding dispute cannot be sustained therefore, further discussion of such judgment has been avoided. (1) 1998 (108) E.L.T. 16 (S.C) G.L. DIDWANIA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER; (2) (2011) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 703 KOLLA VEERA RAGHAV R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lying on the decision reported in (2013)10 SCC 686 Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh wherein Hon ble the Supreme Court has held that settling the dispute with the bank is no ground to quash criminal proceedings against defaulter/loanee because such offences are not related to banking activities and it has harmful effect on public and it threatens the whole society and therefore though bank seems to be the victim society in general is victimized and hence criminal complaint was deni .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent and there was no benefit to the accused. 31. Mr. Kodekar is also relying upon the decision in (2013) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 789 between MOHIT alias SONU AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER wherein Hon ble Supreme Court has considered the revisional powers of the Court under Section 397(2) with reference to interlocutory order and held that when there is specific remedy provided by way of appeal or revision, inherent powers under section 482 cannot and should not be resorted to. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ituting the offence alleged ; therefore it cannot be said that even if in absence of suspicion, presumptive opinion of the commission of offence as alleged, charge must be framed. Suffice to say that when enactment /statute provides for discharging accused, basically accused has a right to get discharge, which may be subject to fulfillment of certain criteria, that may be laid down either in the statute as well as its interpretation by the Apex Court and not otherwise. Therefore, there can be or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

annot be a presumption against the accused that he had committed the offence and he may be entitled to get discharged from the charges levied against him under the charge sheet. Needless to say that the charges levied against the person is to be considered and not the story or history of incident which results into the commission of offence. For more clarity, commission of offence alone is not sufficient to frame charge against any person, there must be some suspicion that offence had been commi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing agency that accused had committed the offence as alleged in charge sheet. The Court has to arrive at independent opinion, after considering the available prima facie evidenced on record - which is in the form of papers with the charge sheet, not only tabular charge sheet but list of witnesses and their statement before the investigating agency (police papers). It is the Court's duty to frame independent opinion regarding not only commission of crime but involvement or role of the accused .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ence against him would be a futile exercise and it will not only increase unnecessary workload but crime in the society also, since real culprits are able to get secluded them from the trial. 33. It becomes clear that the special judge mainly relied upon the facts discussed in the FIR and charge-sheet, but failed to realize the legal position in the case of compromise or compounding of offence by the parties. There is no need to proceed further in criminal proceedings. The Trial Court has also f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Managing Director of the Company and when the Company and its Vice President has also compounded the offence with department on payment of compounding charges, it cannot be said that there is sufficient material and ground to continue with the proceeding against remaining accused including the present petitioners who are practically not concerned with the final benefit if any received by the Company. When factually Company has never received any financial benefit it cannot be ignored that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Act and Rules provides for compounding the offences so also section 320 of Cr.PC. It is also undisputed fact that once main offence is compounded then there is catana of judgments by Supreme Court that when the department has compounded the offences then there is no reason to continue the criminal proceedings, more particularly when offences are either in the form of breach of rules or technical offences. In the present case, though some documents are alleged to be forged practically there is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such conclusion, reference to certain judgments of the Apex Court are necessary, which are as under. (1) AIR 1997 S.C. 2041: State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj - It is held that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the charges by arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cused committed that particular offence. Thus it is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e before the Court of Session, if the Court on consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submission of the prosecution and the accused if the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused after recording reasons for doing so. (4) (1997) 4 SCC 393 = 1997 AIR SCW 1833: State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj - Referring to the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Pu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out that whether there is any ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (5) AIR 2007 SC 2149 = 2007 AIR SCW 3683 - Soma Chakravarty v. State - It is held a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d only if such charges i.e. evidence is proved on record without reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no chance to prove a commission of offence by the accused, charge cannot be framed. (7) AIR 2009 SC Supplimentary 1744 - State of M.P. Vs.Sheetla Sahai It is held as under: if the Court arrives at only opinion, there is no evidence against the accused, the Court shall not put accused to harassment by asking him to face a trial. 1. Thus, the law on the subject is now well settled, that while .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version