M NATARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Revision Petition is preferred against the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in crl. M. P. No. 146 of 2005 in C. C. No. 6 of 2004, dated 18. 04. 2005. THE Criminal original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 6 of 2004, on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases (VIII Addl.), Chennai.

(2.) THE brief facts mentioned in the Crl. O. P. , which can also be applied in the Revision Case, are as follows:- One Dr. S. Balakrishnan (3rd accused) purchased a Lexus car, which was sent by ship to Madras in July 1994. Yogesh Balakrishnan (4th accused), who is the son of 3rd accused, delivered certain documents for getting clearance of the said car from the customs Department. One of the said documents was the letter dated 08. 09. 1994 of 1st accused, the present petitioner, who is the publisher of a magazine called "tamilarasi", which was commenced in the year 1992. THE 1st accused is also the author of bi-monthly magazine "pudiya PARVAI", which was commenced in the year 1993. One Baskaran (2nd accused) was assisting the petitioner/1st accused, and he was also in-charge of the said publications. Allegation of criminal conspiracy among the above said four accused in getting customs clearance for the importing of Toyata car, under the condition of transfer of residence to India for permanent settlement, was made on the footing that they produced forged fabricated invoice dated 13. 07. 1993 showing undervalue of the car and also wrongly mentioning that the car was purchased in the year 1993, so as to fulfil the condition precedent for importing the said car.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, at the outset, relied upon the decision in M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Bhiwani Denim & apparels Ltd. , 2001 JT (7) SC 127 and contended that the Crl. O. P. filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code as well as the Revision Case filed under section 239, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot co-exist simultaneously. A reading of the observation made in the above judgment makes the Revision Case maintainable, and on which also arguments was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Without going into the technicalities of the matter, even if either quashable or dischargeable points are available on the side of the petitioner, remedy in the appropriate proceedings may be given, and if such remedy is not available in either of the cases, then both have to be dismissed.