C. KRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE criminal revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are against an order dated 23 -5 -2012 in Spl. C.C. No. 137 of 2011 on the file of the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, whereby the Court has ordered to frame the charge against the revision petitioners, who are accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. Revision petitioners are accused 1 to 3 before the Special Judge in Spl. C.C. No. 137 of 2011. Revision petitioner -C. Krishnappa is the accused 1 working as Superintendent of Central Excise, Bangalore. Revision petitioner -Sai Babu and revision petitioner -V. Ranga Rao, are accused 2 and 3 working as Manager (Accounts) and Managing Director of M/s. Vacuum Techniques Private Limited, Peenya Bangalore. M/s. Vacuum Techniques Private Limited, is a company situated at Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore, engaged in manufacture of excisable goods such as rotary vacuum pumps, vacuum furnace and vacuum measuring gauges etc.

(2.) THE Office of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Bangalore -III Commissionerate, received credible information that accused 1 to 3 entered into criminal conspiracy in the year 2008 to cheat the Central Excise Department in the matter of availment of irregular CENVAT credit facility by accused 3 -company and thereby caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 16.20 lakhs to the Central Excise Department. Upon receipt of credible information, the Central Excise Department appointed an Audit Party consisting of accused 1 -C. Krishnappa, Superintendent of Central Excise -I, Smt. Doreta, Superintendent of Central Excise -II and Sri. K. Prakash, the Excise Inspector to undertake audit of the unit M/s. Vacuum Techniques Private Limited. During the audit, the members Smt. Doreta and K. Prakash noticed 111 invoices on which CENVAT credit has been availed by the company which was irregular. But the accused 1 submitted a audit report stating that only 23 invoices were found irregular by suppressing the true facts. Thereby, it has caused loss to the Department to the tune of Rs. 16,20,721/ - in respect of 88 invoices out of 111. As such, a crime came to registered by the CBI in No. RC.11(A)/2010 -BLR on 30 -7 -2010 against all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the course of investigation, the CBI recorded the statement of the accused 1 to 3 apart from statement of 17 other witnesses. The CBI collected various documents and after obtaining an order of sanction to prosecute accused 1 being a public servant, filed a charge -sheet against all the three accused persons before the Special Judge in Spl. C.C. No. 137 of 2011. The accused appeared before the Court. The CBI and the Counsel for the accused were heard by the Special Judge before framing the charge. After hearing the CBI and the defence Counsel and upon perusal of entire material placed on record, by impugned order, the Court has ordered to frame charge against accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent -CBI. Perused the records.