SUNIL MEHDIRATTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these five cases involve Identical issues and are, therefore, taken up for disposal together. Seagram Manufacturing Limited, the petitioner In Crl. Writ Petition No. 58/2001, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Sunil Mehdiratta, petitioner in CM. Writ No. 870/2001 Is the Head of the Management System of the Companies. Param Uberoi, petitioner In Cn Writ No. 57/2001 Is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Harvinder Singh Bhatia, petitioner in Cn. Writ No. 58/2001 is the Controller-Finance of the Company. Akram Fahami, petitioner In Cn. Writ 870/2001 is the Chairman of the company.

(2.) . In each of the writ petitions, prayer Is made to quash the criminal complaint Instituted by Shri Kamal Kumar, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) In the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi on 22/12/2000. Process has been directed to be Issued after cognizance was taken of several offences. In some cases non-bailable warrants have been issued against the concerned petitioner for non-appearance before the learned ACMM on the date fixed. Petitioners' stand in essence is that on 19/12/2000, show cause notice was issued by the authorities under the Customs Act, 1982, (in short, the Act) Earlier notices were issued under Section 28 and 111 of the Act. Same was subject matter of challenge in Crl Writ No. 1348/2001. The said writ petition was disposed of on 27/8/2001 taking note of the submission of learned Solicitor General that the notice was to be treated as one for finalisation of the assessment in terms of Section 18(2) of the Act. It was further stated that if it was so thought proper notice in terms of Section 111 read with Section 24 may be issued. Petitioner in that case had taken the stand that stage had not arrived for such action. It was observed by this Court that petitioner had the liberty to approach the appropriate forum in case any notice in terms of Sections 111 and 24 of the Act was issued. .

(3.) . Though a prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings in these cases, at the time of hearing of the writ petitions, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that proceedings before learned ACMM may be kept in abeyance because of the pendency of proceedings before the adjudicating authority. According to him, decision in the adjudication proceeding will have relevance and bearing on the criminal cases and therefore the said proceeding deserve to be stayed. A case of malafides is also sought to be proved by making a reference to the fact that show cause notice was issued in the adjunction proceedings on 19/12/2006 and the criminal complaint was filed on 22/2/2000. and overwhelming portions of the complaint are almost Identical to over whelming portion of the show cause notices. Out of 63 pages 59 pages are identical. It is also submitted that in order to prove bonafides. petitioners have made request for early finalisation of the adjudication proceedings, but to no avail.