VINOD KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions. Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 1507/88 filed by Vinod Kumar Jain and Criminal Revision No.53/89 filed by the State (Central Bureau of Investigation), are against the order dated October 19, 1988, of a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by which he had directed framing of charges against accused Vinod Kumar Jain, R.K. Jain and Kishan Lal Suri for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').and another charge under Section 420 Indian Penal Code against accused K.L.Suri and charges under Section 109 read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code against accused V.k. Jain and he by the same order had discharged the accused K L. Narang, Swaraj Jaggi and Sudershan Kumar Tandon.

(2.) Vinod KumarJain has pleaded for quashment of charges framed against him and also against his .other co-accused pleading that the main offence of conspiracy having been allegedly committed at Singapore and no permission having been obtained of the 'Central Government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), the proceedings against the petitioner and his- co-accused cannot continue before the trial court. Another plea taken by him is that statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating agency in the present case,who are residents .of .Singapore, are not covered by the provisions of the Code particularly Section 161 of the Code and thus, for framing the charges for the purpose of Sections 239 & 240 of the Code the said statements could not be looked into and thus, the charges could not have been framed against the petitioner and his co-accused on 'the basis of the said statements. Thirdly, it has been pleaded that statements of B.S. Aujla and his son Manmohan Singh, residents of Singapore, being the statements of accopoalices, could not be basis for framing the charges unless the said statements are corroborated by some independent and material evidence being relied upon by the prosecution and there being no such corroborative evidence collected by the prosecution, thus the charges could not have been framed. I would first deal with these points.

(3.) The petitioner V.K. Jain is the Managing Director of M/s Jain Shudh Vanaspati Limited whereas his co-accused and his rea! brother R.K. Jain is the Managing Director of M/s Jain exports (Private) Limited and his other co-accused K..L. Suriisa partner of the firm M/s. Orient Enterprises. B.S. Aujla arid his Manmohan Singh are residents of Singapore and they are having three different companies at Singapore. V K. Jajn was having allegedly close business association with BS. Aujia and his son. Manmohan Singh as he has been importing different kinds of palm oil through ..them since 1977. In the year 1978 it. is alleged that V.K. Jain bad entered into conspiracy with B.S. Aujia and pursuance to which he had attempted to import banned coconut oil by showing that in fact he was importing R.B.D Palm Oil but realising that his game was up as .the Custom authorities had become wise to this particular conspiracy, he got the ship redirected to Singapore where be had to unload the coconut oil and get it loaded with RBD. Palm Oil and thus, in the process he suffered huge loss of 2.5 million US dollars. In order to cover up the said loss, V.K.. Jain and his brother R K Jain had decided to make a more careful and planner scheme which is the basis of the present conspiracy,