RAJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for anticipatory bail. It is stated that the applicant is the resident of New Delhi. He carries on business of gems and precious stones in the name and style of M/s. Chandra Gems for the last 10 years. He was approached by one Mr. Mahesh Ganatra, resident of Bombay, to start business of manufacturing plastic goods. The applicant was told by the said Ganatra that one Mr. Shantilal Jain of Bombay was interested in financing the manufacturing project. The applicant, therefore, got the licence to establish a small scale industry and obtained Certificate of Registration from the Department of Small Scale Industries, New Delhi. All these certificates obtained are not known to the applicant. According to the applicant, it was explained to the applicant by Mr. Ganatra that Shantilal Jain has good relations with some officers of the licensing authority. He was also assured that he will get the necessary import licence. The export was also to be done by Shantilal Jain. He again says without giving any reason that various amounts of money were deposited in the account of the applicant by Mr. Ganatra. In fact, it was Mr. Ganatra who was operating the account by depositing and withdrawing money from the said account. All this was done in the name of Varsha Poly Products Pvt. Ltd. having its administrative office in Bombay. The applicant was merely given certain invoices. He never received any goods. He also does not have access to or control over any godown or factory. Thus, he submits that he never manufactured any goods. Therefore, the question of importing/exporting any goods also did not arise. In November 1997, Shantilal Jain went to Delhi in the third week. He assured the applicant that all payments of customs duty will be made. Surprisingly, however, on 7th January, 1998, the D. R. I. , New Delhi, recovered 300 documents from the applicant, which were of incriminating nature. Shantilal Jain filed an anticipatory bail Application No. 29 of 1998 in Bombay. He was granted anticipatory bail and it was observed that custodial interrogation is not necessary.

(2.) ON the direction of the Court, the learned Counsel appearing for the D. R. I. has produced before this Court the operative part of the order passed in the case of Shantilal Jain. The operative part of the order is as follows :

(3.) FROM perusal of the above, it appears that the present applicant can derive no benefit from the same. On 19th March, 1998, this matter was adjourned to 23rd March, 1998 on the request of the Counsel for the applicant. Again on that day the matter was adjourned to 30th March, 1998. Again none appeared for the applicant on 30th March, 1998 and the matter was kept for today. Now again, none appears on behalf of the applicant. It is submitted by the Counsel for the D. R. I. that the application of the present applicant for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Sessions Court. A copy of the order is not available either with the applicant or with the respondents. In any event, this Court has examined the matter in detail in view of the fact that the Counsel for the applicant is not present.