PRAKASH THAWANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prakash Thawani has filed this application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being released in anticipation of his arrest in case FIR No. RC 12/90/SPL/DLI dated 26th October, 1990 under Sec. 120-B read with Secs. 420,467,468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and substantive offence under Sec. 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 3rd August, 1990, 11 cartons and one wooden box containing airconditioner and one photo-copier were imported in India vide air-way bill No. 098-6110, 6846 by Air India Flight No. 738. This consignment was allegedly imported into India in the name of Embassy of Peru as official import claiming duty exemption. The Embassy of Peru have been importing their goods through M/s A. Andrews and Company (Mail Order) Ltd. 38-44, D'Aguilar Street, Hong Kong and M/s Sartaj Electronics, P. 01 Box 12655, Dubai(UAE) and the the petitioner Prakash Thawani has been the representative of the said companies inindia.

(2.) On 9th August, 1990 the petitioner and Jasminder Singh came to the Import II Building, Air Cargo Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi for attempting the clearance of the aforesaid consignment. There was already a secret intelligence information with the Assistant Collector Costoms (Import) that some Custom House Agent who imports the goods for Embassy of Peru is misusing the diplomatic channel for the import of the goods. On the basis of this information both the petitioner and Jasminder Singh were apprehended. It was found that on the basis of Certificate PE-OFF/7/90 exemption was sought in respect of the said 12 packages containing 11 units of room air-conditioner and one photo-copier machine. This exemption certificate had the attestation No. 7651 dated 7th August, 1990 from the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. On suspicion the document was seized and it was found that it was a forged document. Authority letter was also produced claiming the delivery of these packages which too was found to be forged one.

(3.) It is in these circumstances that it was found that the petitioner who has been importing goods for the Embassy has been misusing his position and was indulging in import of goods without payment of the necessary duty. On investigation it was found that the Embassy of Peru had not placed any such order and bad disowned the said consignments. It has also been found that the necessary documentations like master air way bill etc. were received in the Former Travel & Cargo (1) Ltd. wherefrom the same were collected by the petitioner.