MAJ GENERAL (RETD.) C.L. PIPLANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Major General (Retd.) CL Piplani, MM Piplani and PN Piplani (this petitioner was deleted from the array of petitioners by order of this court dated July 7, 1999). The challenge is to the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dated June 5, 1999 whereby revision petition filed by PC Aggarwal (respondent 2) was allowed and it was directed that the order dated March 7, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI dropping charges against the two petitioners and Jaya Piplani (stated to have died on February 11, 1996) was without any basis and could not be maintained.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar lodged a complaint under Sections 120-B, 420, 471 IPC and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act on June 21, 1988 before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar (the case was later transferred to Special Judicial Magistrate, Patiala). Accused 1 was a partnership firm under the name and style M/s Impex Services, whose partners were PN Piplani, MM Piplani, CL Piplani and Smt. Jaya Piplani. Accused 2 was PC Aggarwal. Accused 3 was PN Piplani aforementioned. There were 7 other accused. The allegations were that PN Piplani had given a general power-of- attorney in favour of Ravinder Kumar on the directions of PC Aggarwal. Ravinder Kumar was working as a peon with PC Aggarwal. He signed as Ravi Kumar and filed an application on October 26, 1983 addressed to the Secretary, Apparel Export Promotion Council, the same was proposed by Parkash Chand Aggarwal and seconded by Mahavir Parshad Verma, who were the employees of PC Aggarwal. Membership number was issued to M/s Impex Services. Details of transactions were mentioned in the complaint. However, on investigation it was revealed that export orders of M/s JYO TAX INC Canada, were found bogus and this firm was found to be fictitious one. The details of various transactions were also given in the complaint.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment observed that M/s Impex Services was a partnership firm and PN Piplani, MM Piplani, CL Piplani and Jaya Piplani were its partners. The court further found that the observations of the learned trial Magistrate that no useful purpose would be served by summoning the other partners was without basis and could not be maintained. It was held that when a criminal act was attributed to a firm then all its partners were equally and individually liable.