RAKESH RAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, I shall dispose of the applications for suspension of sentence preferred by the petitioners during pendency of revision petitions against conviction of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Aggawal under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and petitioner Rakesh Rai under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and under Section 420 and 468 IPC upheld in appeal.

(2.) FOUR persons namely Javed Waqar Merchant @ Mohd. Waqar, Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, Rakesh Rai and Smt. Sayesta Bano wife of Javed Waqar were put on trial in this criminal case before leaned ACMM, Delhi for playing fraud upon the State by cheating the exchequer on the basis of forged documents, of duty drawback to the tune of Rs.56,15,480/-. It was alleged that this conspiracy to cheat was hatched up by all the four accused persons. The main accused was Javed Waqar Merchant, Smt. Sayesta Bano was his wife and the other accused persons (the petitioners herein) had participated in the conspiracy. During trial, accused Javed Waqar and his wife Sayesta Bano became proclaimed offenders and the trial proceeded against the remaining two accused persons (petitioners). The trial court considered the entire evidence as placed before it and came to conclusion that the both the accused persons/ petitioners were part of the conspiracy hatched up to cheat the government and had also benefited from the conspiracy and got a part of the booty so obtained by cheating. Thus both the petitioners herein were convicted under Section 120B read with Section 420 as well as under Section 420 IPC, however, it was found that accused Rakesh Rai had also forged shipping bills by forging signatures of S.N. Goel, Inspector Customs and Mr. Y.R. Kilana, Superintendant Customs posted at IGI Airport purported to show that they had inspected the goods at cargo section and on the basis of such shipping bills, an application for duty drawback was made.

(3.) I, therefore, consider that the two petitioners/ accused persons were not entitled to suspension of sentence. The applications for suspension of sentence are hereby dismissed. However, the petitions should be heard at an early date since the sentence in this case awarded is only one year, so that the petitions do not become infructuous. In case the petitions are not heard early, the petitioners would be at liberty to make another application for suspension of sentence.