VINOD KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of Code, of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of 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, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Lal for the respondent-CBI.

(2.) It will be seen that the petitioner Raj Kumar Jain along with others is facing criminal charges under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, In a case which was registered against him and others in the year 1979, namely, State Vs. V. K. Jain and others. After the registration of the case a number of years were spent in the investigation because the allegations of conspiracy and cheating involved crores of rupees. During the course of investigation, it was found that co-accused Vinod Kumar Jam suffered heavy losses and to cover up those losses he conspired with B. S. Aujia and his son Manmohan Singh of Singapore to make quick money by illegal means and as a result of that conspiracy it Was decided to sink two old ships by name 'AVERILLA' and "CHDAI' after showing that the ships had been loaded with genuine cargo at Singapore whereas they were to carry spurious cargo. Letters of credit were then obtained from Banks by the accused persons residing in India. They also conspired to get the cargo heavily insured. The conspiracy was to sink those two ships and then cheat Insurance Companies by claiming for insured amount which was really meant to cover the cost: and profits of genuine cargo whereas the goods sunk were to be spurious stuff. It may be further noted that after hearing volumincus arguments in this case learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered framing of charges vide his detailed order dated 19-10-1988 comprising of 209 pages under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Some of the accused persons, namely, K. L. Narang, S. Jaggi and S. K. Tandon were discharged because charges against them Were found to be groundless. Charges were ordered to be framed against V. K. Jain, R. K. Jain and K. L. Suri accused persons.

(3.) It may be noted that one of the accused person V. K. Jain who is brther of Raj Kumar Jain, present petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order of charge and also for quashing the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. A stay of the proceeding was granted in that petition by P. K. Bahri, J. vide order dated 14-2-89. This stay was granted with the consent of counsel for CBI. Later on the CBI also field a revision petition against the same order claiming that the charges against the discharged persons should also have been framed. In that revision petition also, it is admitted that the proceedings were ordered to be stayed.