PRABHU SINGH WALIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail since he has an apprehension that he is likely to be arrested by Respondent No. 2 Commissioner of Central Excise (Thane-I) in connection with an offence which is registered under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. It is alleged that the applicant is the partner in a firm which is known as Hi-Tech Fabric Processors which is situated at Thane. It is also alleged that he is the President of New Textile Processor's Association, Thane since 1998. It is submitted that the applicant is an active social worker and a crusader against bribe and corruption. It is stated that the organization of the applicant was instrumental in fighting against the compounded levy on textile industry which was subsequently cancelled by the Central Government. It is alleged that the officers of Central Excise, Thane searched the premises of the applicant and, the records and the premises were seized by them on 6-8-2003. The allegation against the applicant was that the applicant was evading excise duty and was clandestinely removed the goods from his factory. It is alleged that the applicant was called to the office of the department to explain the transaction of the firm on more than 16 occasions. It is stated that the applicant made allegations against the investigating officers of the department that they had demanded bribe and accordingly his statement was recorded on 3-11-2003, after he had sent a letter dated 3-10- 2003. It is alleged that the applicant had made similar complaint by his letter dated 13-8-2003. It is alleged that the officers of Respondent No. 2 are harassing the applicant and are demanding custodial interrogation on account of the letters which have been written by him. It is submitted that in respect of the alleged evasion of duty, he has already paid the entire amount of fine to the tune of Rs. Two lakhs. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that, therefore, this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

(2.) Mr. Rana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, on the other hand, submitted that the allegations which are made by the applicant in his complaint are entirely unfounded. He has invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the officer of Respondent No. 2 and also to the affidavit filed by the Commissioner. He submitted that after the initial raid was conducted, it was brought to the notice of the officers that over and above the evasion of duty which was initially noticed, the record found in the raid indicated a huge racket of evasion of duty. The record which was seized indicated that there was large scale evasion of duty to the tune of of Rs. Five to Rs. Six crores and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the application was found to be necessary and, therefore, sanction was granted by the Commissioner on 19-12-2005 and on the same day complaint was registered against the applicant. He submitted that, therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant that after the applicant had made an application for anticipatory bail, the sanction to prosecute him was obtained, is incorrect and false. He further submitted that though the applicant was summoned on 16 occasions, he had attended the office of Respondent No. 2 on only 6 occasions and even after the order was passed by this Court asking the applicant to report to Respondent No. 2's office, the applicant did not co-operate with the officers of Respondent No. 2. Mr. Rana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India, has invited my attention to the further affidavit, which has been filed, which indicates that the applicant did not co-operate with the officers of Respondent No. 2. He also invited my attention to the statement of applicant which was recorded by the investigating officer in which he had admitted that certain goods have been clandestinely removed without payment of duty.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently opposed this submission and submitted that this is not correct. He submitted that the files which were demanded by Respondent No. 2 were damaged in the flood in July 2005 and since all the documents were with Respondent No. 2, he may be permitted to take xerox copies of the said documents and then reconstruct the entire ledgers.