TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on inasmuch as as per the provision of Section 132 which existed at the relevant time the punishment which could have been imposed for violating Section 132 could have extended for a period of six months or with fine or with both and limitation in such a case as provided under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. was only 1 year. In the present case, the complaint was filed by the respondent on 31.08.1998 whereas the incident in this case pertains to the year 1997 and, therefore, the complaint was admittedly barred by limitation. This has also been accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments. - 239/2004 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2010 - Date of Reserve: 22.12.2009 Through: Mr. Mohit Kumar, advocate Through: M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of a Custom House Clearing Agent (CHA) namely M/S Bhatia Shipping and Agencies Pvt. Ltd. to the said accused as he was knowing the ex-manager Shri Ved Bhatia of M/S Bhatia Shipping Agency. iii. The petitioner also visited Customs office in Patpargang for the purpose of processing documents which had to be filed by accused no. 1 before the Customs authorities. Similarly, the petitioner also suggested the source of purchasing jackets to the first accused in Kolkata from whom the first accused engaged the purchase of jackets with one Pavan Goenka. However, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the export of any of the goods which the first accused was to undertake did not get any financial advantage nor h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prosecution itself it was only accused no. 1 who signed all such documents and further the petitioner did not help the accused no. 1 or any one else in the preparation of the same, and he never ascertained any valuation as he was/is not concerned with any monetary outcome of any transaction conducted by the accused no. 1 and further the petitioner did not finalize the final prices of the items/ goods which were to be exported and the petitioner had no role to play either in the export business or otherwise. v. Because, the ingredients of Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) are not made out and the same cannot be made out under the facts and circumstances as the prosecution and the Ld. Magistrate failed to consider that the Section 132 is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /S Magadh Enterprises. Hence the provisions of Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act for violation of the prohibition under FERA cannot apply to the petitioner as admittedly, even as per the admission by the prosecution agency in para no. 2 of the complaint the accused no. 1 is the exporter and owner of the goods in question. viii. Because, even otherwise, the prosecution agency has tried to rope in the petitioner for attempt to claim higher credit entitlement under DEPB Scheme (Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme) which is not applicable in present case and in any event to the present petitioner. ix. Because, the DEPB Scheme allows drawback of import charges on inputs used in the export products. The objective of DEPB Scheme is to neutra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccused no. 1 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and that of the complainant does not implicate the petitioner in the aforesaid case. Besides that, there is no other evidence available with the respondent against the petitioner. 4. I have heard the submissions of both the sides. None of the parties have filed written submissions despite opportunity granted. 5. Section 135 of the Customs Act reads as under: Section 135 - Evasion of duty or prohibitions [(1) Without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person- (a) is in relation to any goods in any way knowingly concerned in misdeclaration of value or in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. At the outset, it may be observed that in the present case there is nothing to show that the petitioner made any false declaration or prepared false documents and, therefore, he is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 132 of the Customs Act. In this case, moreover the complaint is barred by limitation inasmuch as as per the provision of Section 132 which existed at the relevant time the punishment which could have been imposed for violating Section 132 could have extended for a period of six months or with fine or with both and limitation in such a case as provided under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. was only 1 year. In the present case, the complaint was filed by the respondent on 31.08.1998 whereas the incident in this case perta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
