KAPOOR CHAND MAGANLAL CHANDERIA Vs. DELHI STATE ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While we strongly deprecate the conduct of the appellant in altering the affidavit sworn by him at Dares Salaam on 5/07/1966 countersigned by the Third secretary, High Commission for India, Tanzania by substituting in ink the word 'permanently' for the words 'for three years' for securing customs clearance for his Mercedes Benz 200 Saloon Car, Model 1965, bearing registration No. KGA 111 which he had brought along with him in July 1966 as part of his personal baggage, free of duty, under the international convention known as Caret De Passage Tripetrique, under which he could retain the car only for a maximum period of one year, which may prima facie make out a case for framing of a charge under S. 420 read with S. 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, we do feel that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the appellant to another prosecution punishable under S. 420 read with S. 511 of the Code after a lapse of nearly 20 years.

(2.) There can be no doubt that the appellant was guilty of impropriety by scoring out the words 'for three years' and substituting in ink the word 'permanently', but the appellant was candid enough to admit that he had done so under the reasonable belief that he could utilize the unused affidavit that he bad sworn at Dares Salaam for the aforesaid purpose of getting customs clearance. But the fact remains that the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports refused to grant the request as a result of which the appellant expatriated the said Mercedes Benz car out of India within the prescribed period of one year as prescribed under the Tripetrique convention. Prior to 1966, the appellant was a British citizen of Indian origin having extensive business interests at Mombasa in Tanzania and several other countries of the world. He had a family holding in Messrs Atul Drug House Limited, Bombay and came on a temporary visit for a period of three years to survey the business situation and to make a decision about his future stay in the country. After his arrival in India, he was on 9/07/1966 appointed a Managing Director thereof. Apparently he found that his involvement in Messrs Atui Drug House Limited as a Managing Director required his presence in India for quite some time and accordingly applied to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for the issue of an import licence to keep the said car for more than one year. That request of his was turned down by the Chief Controller of imports and Exports on the ground that he had not come to India for permanent settlement. Thereafter, the appellant intimated the Chief Controller that he had reconsidered his decision and decided to stay in India permanently. The Chief Controller had required the appellant to submit amongst other documents an affidavit countersigned either by the High Commission for India in Tanzania or the Indian Embassy at Nairobi in Kenya or a notary public. Undoubtedly, the appellant committed a foolish act by substituting in ink the word 'permanently' for the words 'for three years' in the affidavit submitted by him presumably because he thought that he would be required to go back to Tanzania to swear such an affidavit which was just a mere formality. The appellant could as well have swum an affidavit before a notary public at Bombay and submitted it along with his application for customs clearance.

(3.) The appellant for this act of indiscretion has already suffered a prosecution launched by the central Bureau of Investigation in the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay for com- mission of an alleged offence punishable under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid affidavit which he had furnished to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was a document filed by the prosecution in that case and put in evidence to substantiate the charge that he made a false declaration before the Assistant Collectorof Customs, Bombay that he was a tourist and had come to Bombay to stay for a period of six months and thereby the Assistant Collector was misled by the declaration so made although the appellant knew full well that he had swom an affidavit before the Third secretary, High Commission for India at Dares Salaam that he was taking up an appointment as a Director of Messrs Atul Drug House Limited and if would therefore necessitate him to remain in India for a period of three years at least. The prosecution further alleged that he made a representation to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi to issue him a customs clearance and when he was asked to produce affidavit in support of his claim, he scored out the words 'for three years' from the said affidavit and added in ink the word 'permanently' which amounted to forgery for which a case was pending in the Delhi court.