ARVIND V INAMDAR Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition the original accused No. 3 seeks the quashing of the process issued as against him under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Control of Imports and Exports Act, 1947.

(2.) The Respondent No. 1 has filed the present complaint against eight accused for the aforesaid offences on the allegation that the accused No. 1, a resident of Surat was knowing the Petitioner - the accused No. 3 who was a clerk in the State Bank at Surat, as the accused No. 1 was an account holder in that bank. The wife of the accused No. 3 was a partner in Pioneer Construction Company and the accused No. 1 used to give contracts of construction to the said firm in the tune of about Rs. 16 lakhs. The accused No. 1 approached the Petitioner for suggesting some person in whose name the accused No. 1 could carry on business benami. The accused No. 1 was to carry on the business of Import of blank TDK audio cassette tapes manufactured at Japan under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme for the purpose of recording the same and re-exporting them. Under the said scheme payment of duty was exempted. The accused No. 1 stated to the Petitioner that he would carry on the entire business himself and the benami will only have to lend his name and offer his signatures as and when required. The Petitioner knew accused No. 2 as he happened to be a cousin of a co-employee of the Petitioner in the State Bank at Surat. The accused No. 2 is a man of straw working on daily wages in the business of accepting Matka bets. The Petitioner introduced the accused No. 2 to accused No. 1 and the aforesaid business was started in the name of Bittu Cassette Recorders and that was in the name of the accused No. 2.

(3.) It is the case of the Prosecution that in the course of the said business the two consignments of 250 cartons each were received at Bombay. The Petitioner in the company of the accused No. 1 had on or about the 5th or 6th September 1984 come to Bombay and cleared one of the aforesaid cartons from the Customs at the docks. According to the Prosecution of the said consignment, instead of being transported to Surat, was taken to the godown of accused No. 8 at Kurla and it is their further case that instead of using the said cassette tapes for the purpose of recording and thereafter re-exporting them, they were clandestinely sold in the open market. A show was also made of the said cassette tapes being exported out of Bombay by obtaining false 'N' forms from the Municipal authorities to show that the said consignment was transported to Bittu Cassette Recorders at Surat, when the major portion of the consignment was in fact sold in the local market.