DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs. NARENDRA SOGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 13.7.2010 and 28.1.2011. By the first order, the learned Court of ACMM had imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the petitioner on the ground of adjournment which was granted for production of Prosecution evidence. So far as the order dated 28.1.2011 is concerned, the same is being assailed on the ground that the petitioner's evidence has been closed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), through its Intelligence Officer, M.T. Murli filed a complaint under Section 135(1) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegations made in the complaint were that on specific information by the officers of the DRI, an ambassador car, bearing registration No.RNI- 600,was intercepted at Kacha Bagh, Delhi on 27.6.1990 at about 10:30 hrs. The said car, along with its four occupants, namely, Narendra Sogani, Ajay Jain, Kanhiya Lal Sharma and Shambu Singh Daroga were escorted to DRI Office at CGO Complex, New Delhi for search of the occupants of the car as well as the car itself. It is alleged that on search of the car thoroughly, it resulted in recovery of seven bricks of silver wrapped with canvas bags totaling 211 kgs. from a secret cavity behind the backrest of the rear seat. In addition to this, 28 foreign marked gold biscuits were also recovered from the possession of one accused, Ajay Jain. The said gold biscuits were wrapped with adhesive tape and tied to his waist with the cloth. The value of the silver was Rs. 14,13,700/- and the value of the gold was Rs. 10,61,515/-. The articles were seized and on the basis of the said information, a complaint was filed against the petitioner.

(3.) The complaint came up for hearing, for the first time, before the Court of the learned ACMM on 4.12.1991. It took the petitioners nearly 15 years to produce the pre-charge evidence. On 8.12.2006, after production of the pre-charge evidence, a charge under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act was directed to be framed against the four respondents for having acquired possession and carrying/keeping/ concealing and dealing with the gold and silver which they had reason to believe was liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. After framing of the charges also, nearly five years had gone by and the post-charge evidence could not be completed. This was despite the fact that sufficient number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner. Ultimately, on 13.7.2010, the learned ACMM, after examining PW6 and PW7, took note of the fact that no other witness was present. An adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that there were five more witnesses who were to be summoned but they have not received any report from the Department in respect of three witnesses. On request of the petitioner for the grant of further opportunity, one more opportunity was granted, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The cost was directed to be paid to the accused persons and the matter was adjourned to 28.1.2011. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Court witnesses which was allowed on the ground that the case has already been adjourned for another date.