SASHI BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners seeking to call for the records in C. C. No. 34/99 and 35/99 pending on the file of the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge for CBI Cases), Chennai and to quash the same.

(2.) ON a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that insofar as Criminal Original Petition No. 31422 of 2004 is concerned, it comes to be seen that C. C. No. 34 of 1999 has been filed against the petitioner and 6 others alleging that A1 to A7 entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Government of India in pursuance of the said conspiracy, A2 applied for an advance licence under the duty exemption entitlement scheme without valid export orders and A3 forged the said licences and thus with connivance of A2 imported three consignments of man made fabrics using the forged advance licence with the connivance of A2, A5 and A6; that A7 helped in getting the said licence amended as man made cotton fabrics against the provisions of Import and Export Policy, 1992 1997; that thereafter A3 with connivance of A2 tampered the certificate by striking out the word "cotton" and A2 with connivance of A4 and A5 imported the consignment of man made fabrics by abusing their position as public servant and to make A2 get pecuniary advantage for which he was not entitled; that A2 falsely declared in the bill of entry; that the customs officials namely A4 and A5 allowed A2 to commit these offences and thereby according to the respondent all the above said persons committed the above said offences.

(3.) INSOFAR as Crl. O. P. No. 36254 of 2004, is concerned, the petitioner has come forward to file the said petition to quash the proceedings pending in C. C. No. 34/99 before the Court of IX Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai due to certain vital change in circumstances that have taken place pursuant to the order dated 29. 4. 2004 passed by this Court in Crl. O. P. Nos. 20698 and 20699 of 2003, 4495 and 4498 of 2004 and Crl. R. C. Nos. 618 and 619 of 2003; that the order passed by this Court has reached finality and the respondent has not preferred any Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme Court of India challenging the order of this Court dated 29. 4. 2004 in Crl. O. P. Nos. 20698 and 20699 of 2003, 4495 and 4498 of 2004 and Crl. R. C. Nos. 618 and 619 of 2003; that the petitioner further submits that in obedience to the orders passed by this Court quashing the charges against the petitioners in the above mentioned Original Petition and Revision Petition, the learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai has discharged all the petitioners including that of the public servants; that the petitioner submits that charges were framed against the Accused 1 to 7 for offences u/s. 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 13 (2) read with Section 1391) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962; that the charges were framed against the petitioner under Sec. 120b read with Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alone; that pursuant to the order of this Court, Accused 1 to 5 have been discharged and the proceedings initiated against them have been quashed; that the petitioner along with A6, Smt. Sashi Balasubramaniam and another higher officer of the same Department namely the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade are facing trial and five witnesses have been examined so far and the matter now stands adjourned to 19. 11. 2004 for further examination of the witnesses; that he has not been charged with any of the provisions of the IPC offences and Customs Act; that the main accused A1 to A5 have been discharged and the proceedings against them have been quashed and this Court has given a specific and categorical finding in its order dated 29. 4. 2004; and hence, the petitioner would come forward to plead that the said case pending against the petitioner may be quashed.