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

2016 (5) TMI 1343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egna Impex, 7 Sehdev Market, Jalandhar are engaged in fraudulent availment of benefit under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (in short, 'DEPB') scheme by forging the export documents. Investigation was initiated in December, 2000 and during the course of investigation it was found that M/s. Megna Impex have exported the goods under DEPB Scheme from CFS, Ludhiana. It was also found that said firm is a proprietorship concern in the name of Satbir Singh. The investigation in the matter further indicated that Gurkirpal Singh, Ashok Kumar, Pavitar Singh, Vijay Madan and Satbir Singh floated this concern in the name of Satbir Singh who was working as an Assistant of Pavitar Singh on monthly salary of Rs. 6000/-. Accordingly raid was conducted on the business premises of Gurkirpal Singh, Ashok Kumar and Pavitar Singh on 13/14-12-2000 by the officers of Anti Smuggling Wing of Customs Commissionerate Amritsar. Statement of Satbir Singh under Section 108 of the Act was recorded on 13-12-2000 in which he denied that he had ever purchased or exported anything in the name of M/s. Megna Impex. He deposed that it was Gurkirpal Singh who purchased and exported goods in his name and that Ashok Kumar also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ore learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, in which, the following impugned summoning order was passed :- "Present : Complainant with counsel. Complaint presented today. Earlier, it was returned for transfer before this Court by learned Court of CJM, Amritsar. So, it be checked and registered. Earlier, accused were appearing in the said court for the offence punishable u/s. 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. So, as per previous order, accused are ordered to be summoned for 4-3-2011." 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file. 5. The allegation against the petitioner Pavitar Singh is that he was Accountant and that Satbir Singh was his employee and that a fake firm was floated in the name of his employee Satbir Singh and that he was involved in preparation of the forged DEPB which is transferable and can be used for setting off against the customs duty. 6. The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first complaint was filed before the Amritsar Court, which was returned and was re-filed after about one year before the Jalandhar Court. It is contended that offence under Sections 132 and 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. - (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof. (2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of section 220. (3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted. (4) A per .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... )     fraudulently avails of or attempts to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act in connection with export of goods, he shall be punishable, - (i)      in the case of an offence relating to, - (A)    any goods the market price of which exceeds one crore of rupees; or (B)     the evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding thirty lakh of rupees; or (C)    such categories of prohibited goods as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; or (D)    fraudulently availing of or attempting to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty referred to in clause (d), if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds thirty lakh of rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine : Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be for less than one year; (ii)     in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... igated by CBI, Pavitar Singh was found to be not involved in crime. 15. I am of the view that in this case, CBI recorded statements of some of the witnesses under Section 108 of the Act which are admissible in evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to pre-judge the case before the trial. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the maximum sentence for offence under Section 132 of the Act is two years. Therefore, the prosecution under Section 132 of the Act is barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as it is beyond limitation. However, it is to be noted that the sentence under Section 135 of the Act may extend to seven years. 17. It comes out that the complaint was previously filed at Amritsar Court. It was returned and after one year, it was filed at Jalandhar Court. Let the petitioner Pavitar Singh take a plea regarding bar of limitation for offence under Section 132 of the Act and let the lower Court decide the same. In the quashing petition, it is not possible to critically appreciate evidence, which is yet to be produced before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. 18. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there is no .....

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