VINOD KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure has been filed on behalf on Raj Kumar Jain for permission to go abroad for a period of six months from time to time with a condition that one visit shall not be for more than 30 days. I have heard Mr.D.C. Mathur, [earned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Lal for the respondent-CBI

(2.) It will be seen that the petitioner Raj Kumar Jain along withothers is facing criminal charges under Section 120-B read with Sections 420and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. in a case which was registered against himand others in the year 1979. namely. State v. V.K. Jain and others. After theregistration of the case a number of years were spent in the investigationbecause the allegations of conspiracy and cheating involved crorers or rupees.During the course of investigation, it was found that co-accused VinodKumar Jain suffered heavy losses and to cover up those losses he conspiredwith B.S. Aujla and his son Manmohan Singh of Singapore to make quickmoney by illegal means and as a result of that conspiracy it was decided tosink two old ships by man 'AVERILLA' and 'CHDAI, after showing thatthe ships had been loaded with genuine cargo at Singapore whereas they wereto carry spurious cargo. Letters of credit were then obtained from Banks bythe accused persons residing in India. They also conspired to get the cargoheavily insured. The conspiracy was to sink those two ships and then cheatInsurance Companies by claiming for insured amount which was really meantto cover the cost and profits of genuine cargo whereas the goods sunk wereto be spurious stuff. It may be further noted that after hearing voluminousarguments in this case, learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered framingof charges vide his detailed order dated 19.10.1988 comprising of 209 pagesunder various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Some of the accusedpersons, namely, K..L. Narang, S. Jaggi and S.K.. Tandon were dischargedbecause charges against them were found to be groundless. Charges wereordered to be framed against V.K. Jain, R.K. Jain and K.L Suri accusedpersons.

(3.) It may be noted that one of the accused persons V.K. Jain who isbrother of Raj Kumar Jain, present petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order of chargeand also for quashing the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. A stayof the proceedings was granted in that petition by P.K. Bahri, J. vide orderdated 14.2.89. This stay was granted with the consent of counsel for CBI.Later on the CBI also filed a revision petition against the same order claiming that the charges against the discharged persons should also have beenframed. In that revision petition also, it is admitted that the proceedings wereordered to be stayed.