SADHANA JAIN Vs. P SUDHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition which is under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in a complaint under Sections 132 and 135(2)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the "Act") against her instituted by the Director of Revenue Intelligence.

(2.) Briefly narrated, the factsleading to this case are that on 28.8.1998, complainant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed a complaint under Sections 132 and 135(l)(a) of the Act against M/s. DCP Associates Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, Ajit Jain and petitioner Sadhana Jain. Ajit Jain, husband of the petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 2 being the Managing Director of the said company and the petitioner herein was cited as accused No. 3 being the director of the said company. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused No. 1 was importing various types of synthetic linings from Taiwan through Chennai Port. A raid was conducted at the premises of the company on 30.1.1996 and some imported synthetic linings were seized. The statement of the petitioner and her husband were also recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. On further probe it was found that the said company had evaded import duty to the tune of Rs. 86,30,691/-. In para 13 of the complaint it was pleaded that as per statement of the petitioner and her husband recorded on 26.3.1997 and 9.6.1997 the work of the company was mainly looked after by the petitioner's husband. In para 16 of the complaint it was alleged that petitioner and her husband were Director and Managing Director respectively of the company at the time when the offence was committed and were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.

(3.) In departmental adjudication proceedings a show-cause notice dated 18.6.1997 was issued to the company, the petitioner and her husband and after considering a detailed reply and the submissions made on behalf of the company, the petitioner and her husband, the Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 16.3.2000 held that duty was short levied to the extent of Rs. 53,19,605/-. Accordingly, Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods. He also levied a fine of Rs. 26 lakhs in respect of remaining quantity of the imported linings which were not available for the physical confiscation. A penalty of Rs. 53,17,605/- was imposed on the company under Section 114A of the Customs Act and further penalty of Rs. 10 lac was imposed on the petitioner's husband Ajit Jain under Section 112A of the Act. As regards the petitioner, the Commissioner of Customs in para 45 of the order noted that "Sadhana Jain admittedly looked after the affairs of DCP in 1996 much after the imports took place. Hence no penalty on her is warranted". Accordingly, no penalty was imposed on the petitioner Sadhana Jain. Petitioner thereupon filed an application dated 24.2.1999 seeing discharge from the criminal proceedings ini tiated by the department of Revenue Intelligence on the basis of complaint under Sections 132 and 135(l)(a) of the Act. This application was opposed by the department and after considering respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, learned ACMM vide impugned order dated 30.1.2001 rejected the application being of the view that question as to whether the petitioner was in-charge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company can be decided only after the evidence is led by the parties at the trial.