ARUN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being the working partner of one M/s Shri Balaji Oversees, a partnership firm registered in Mumbai dealing in the business of export till 2003 seeks an anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said 'code') for alleged violations of provisions of Customs act, 1962 (in short the said Act ).

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for disposal of the present application are that the petitioner during the period from June 2002 to Jan 2003 exported certain consignments covered under 8 shipping bills wherein the shipping bills covered under serial number 1-4 were made to Dubai from Bombay in dollar value which were assessed by the customs authorities and thereafter the drawback amount @ 12. 25% was credited into the account of the petitioner and the remaining 4 consignments were exported under repayment of State Credit Scheme (popularly known as the Rupee-Rubal Agreement)for which also the drawback back amount had been credited into the account of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner accordingly withdrew a sum of Rs. 32,75,000/-but before the remaining amount of Rs. 36, 87, 493/-could be withdrawn by the petitioner, the respondent/directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short 'dri') authorities freezed the said account of the petitioner in 2003. On two occasions, the petitioner's statement was recorded in April, 2003 and later in April, 2004.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner at many instances made several requests to the DRI to de-freeze his account including the communication made on 15/10/2005, 12/11/2005, 8/12/2005 and 6/2/2006 but to no avail and instead was issued summons dated 8/6/2006 and 04-08-2006 from DRI, Delhi requiring the presence of the petitioner which are stated to be complied with on 19-06-2006 and 04-09-2006 respectively by the petitioner. Further, a complaint u/s 173/174 of the Indian penal Code (in short 'ipc') was filed by the respondent before the Ld. ACMM, New Delhi for non-compliance of summons. The petitioner sought personal exemption from appearance on medical grounds but the Ld. ACMM issued NBWs against the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Mumbai and subsequently filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, Delhi against the order of the Ld. ACMM, Delhi wherein the Ld. Sessions Court, delhi stayed the NBWs and directed the petitioner to appear before the Ld. ACMM, Delhi on 19-12-2007. On 12-12-2007, the Ld. Sessions Court, mumbai disposed of the said Anticipatory bail application of the petitioner as not maintainable on the ground that the respondent/dri did not require the petitioner to be arrested and that the offence under section 135 of the said Act was bailable. On 19-12-2007, the petitioner appeared before the Ld. ACMM, Delhi and was admitted to bail for bailable offence.