SURESH RAMJI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE a very valiant effort on the part of Mr. Gupte appearing for the Customs, I think, I will have to allow this petition, as, in my view, there is no material whatsoever to frame any charge as against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner along with Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and one Fakruddin Sarafally ampanwala were charged for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal code read with Section 135 (1) (a) (ii) and Section 135 (1) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The said Fakruddin became an approver and his statement has been recorded.

(3.) THE petitioner is a partner of a firm by name Messrs Ramji Jaisingh and Co. , engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding work within the jurisdiction of the Bombay Customs for the last several years. The case has been pending since about 1978. The case was committed to the court of Sessions in the year 1982 and as of today, the case has not made any progress and no charge has been framed so far. In fact, on account of the inordinate delay in the trial of the case, the petitioner had to make an application, rightly to the learned Principal Judge of the Court of sessions for Greater Bombay and requested that the petitioner and other accused persons be discharged as the case is not being taken up and the proceedings are pending for a long period of eleven years. The learned Principal Judge, instead of deciding the matter, directed that the matter be placed on board on 7th June 1988 before the learned Sessions Judge. Again, there was no progress in the matter. Finally, when the case was taken up by the learned Sessions Judge, it was argued that there is no material for framing the charge and the learned Judge was requested to discharge the Petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 4th November 1988, the learned Judge declined to accept these submissions and he passed an order accordingly. It is against this order the present petitioner who is Accused No. 5 in the said case, filed this writ petition.