V RAMA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondents waive service. By consent, RULE made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE Petitioner, who is a senior citizen, aged 70 years is arrayed as an Accused (Accused No.3) in the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, being Case No.330/CS/1992.

(3.) MR. Mundargi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Petitioner/Accused contended that the Petitioner is dragged in a Criminal Case which is pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for past more than 17 years. The Petitioner is Accused No.3. On the facts as set out in the complaint itself, it is apparent that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged. The role of the Petitioner is extremely limited inasmuch as he was a nonexecutive Director of Accused No. 1 M/s. P. J. Pipes & Vessels Ltd.. The only role attributed to him was he had a Power of Attorney in his favour from Accused No.1. However, the Petitioner is neither a shareholder nor has any pecuniary interest in the company. Further, he has absolutely no concern with the day to-day business and is not responsible therefor. He was not concerned with the transaction of sale of duty free imported raw materials and/or in applying for two duty free import licenses in question. The Petitioner had not subscribed to any of the declarations made to the Customs Authority by the Company. In such circumstances, and when the First Respondent recorded his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act and issued letters dated 18th April, 1991725th April, 1991 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.2.5 lakhs be not imposed, that the proceedings ended in the order being made by the Adjudicating Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai dated 26th November, 1991. However, the order of the Adjudicating Commissioner was challenged by the Petitioner by filing an Appeal to the Customs and Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 26th August, 2003 set aside the order of the Adjudicating Commissioner imposing penalty on the Petitioner. That order of the Tribunal/Appellate Authority has not been challenged by the First Respondent. It has been allowed to gain finality. Even the amount deposited as a pre-condition has been refunded to the Petitioner.