JAMES SAMUAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani and Mr.Digant M. Popat for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel Mr. R.C. Kodekar for CBI. Perused the record.

(2.) These two petitions are though by different petitioners, they are arising out of the same FIR and having common and similar disputes between the parties and therefore, they are heard and decided together by common judgment. The advocates have also addressed only one set of arguments for both the petitions. Both petitioners have also opted the submissions and decision dated 3.10.2016 in Criminal Revision Application Nos.594 of 2016 with allied matters, which are also with reference to same FIR, but for other accused. Therefore, the discussion is also recorded in one set only to avoid duplication of work and repetition of same facts separately in separate judgments.

(3.) Petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.857 of 2016 namely; James Samual is nowhere connected either with the tax benefit claimed by the Company or with the paper work carried out by another petitioner viz. Babubhai Chhotalal Makwana, an Officer of the Central Excise Department. However, the only allegation against him in the FIR so also in the Chargesheet is to the effect that he has issued forged document in favour of the Company though there was no commercial production by the Company. Whereas, perusal of allegation in the Chargesheet (Page 25 i.e. running page 215 of the petition) on the contrary discloses altogether a different story when it is stated that the Company at Anjar, District Kutch has issued a first invoice being invoice no.1 dated 28.12.2005 to M/s.Angel Enterprise, a proprietary firm of the petitioner. It is also disclosed that a partnership firm of the petitioner M/s.Jai Shakti Engineering and Construction was engaged in fabrication and erection work of the Company. So far as criminal act is concerned, the allegation is only to the effect that though actual supply was of 50 MM thickness MS plates on 4.1.2006, the invoice issued by the Company was for clearance of 06 MS plates of 35 and 40 mm thickness and, thereby, when Company was not able to start production of requisite product, the petitioner firm has tried to show that it has received a proper production as per their order.