M.L. WADHWA Vs. M.M. REHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by one of the accused, M.L. Wadhwa, for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 8.12.1997 (Annexure P-4) in case RC No. 9/E/85-Delhi dated 8.8.1995 registered under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, Police Station CBI, New Delhi, framed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, for setting aside the order dated 8.12.1997 (Annexure P-5) incorporating the reasons for framing the charge; and the order dated 12.12.1998 passed in revision affirming for framing the charge; and the order dated 12.12.1998 passed in revision affirming the order of charge-sheet.

(2.) IN this case, the petitioner along with eight other accused was arrayed as an accused in a complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the complaint, it has been alleged that one M/s. G.K. Ralhan and Company Private Limited obtained import licenses under actual user by submitting forged documents. It has been alleged that the consignments received through three import licenses of M/s. G.K. Ralhan and Company were not utilized for the prescribed purpose by the importer and were unlawfully diverted to sale in the open market. Accused Nos. 3 and 4, namely, M/s. Vajani Steel Traders and Ashok K. Shah, respectively, as per the sequence in the complaint, were alleged to have received imported goods on the authority of licenses (M/s. G.K. Ralhan and Company) and then disposed of the same in an unlawful manner. The allegations against the present petitioner and three others, namely, Ajit P. Toprani (accused No. 7), G.S. Rai (accused No. 8) and Heera Lal (accused No. 9) are that they all were concerned with M/s. Vishwa Niryat Private Limited (accused No. 5) and had unlawfully imported part of the goods in respect of licenses dated 11.6.1980 and 28.12.1979. The said import licenses were debited in the account of some other import licensees for which letters of credit were opened originally. No. L.C. was opened for import licenses in question. M/s. Vishwa Niryat Private Limited through its Director M.L. Wadhwa (petitioner) procured the import licenses unlawfully and imported the goods without a letter of authority from the licensees. The import declarations were signed by Ajit P. Toprani, Heera Lal and G.S. Rai on behalf of M/s. Vishwa Niryat Private Limited. The goods were not delivered to M/s. G.K. Ralhan and Company rather disposed of at Bombay in conspiracy with some unknown persons. Thus, all the accused in conspiracy with each other cheated the government and obtained import licenses on the basis of forged documents.

(3.) AT the time of framing of the charge, the petitioner argued that from the pre-charge evidence led by the prosecution, if goes unrebutted, no case against the petitioner has been made out, which would warrant his conviction. Therefore, no charge could have been framed against the petitioner, and he is entitled to be discharged. It was submitted that from the reading of the statements of all the 19 witnesses and other material available on the record, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It was pointed out that PW-1 to PW-15 are not in any manner concerned with the alleged role of the petitioner or that of accused M/s. Vishwa Niryat Private Limited or other accused connected with the said concern. Only PW-16 and PW-17 deposed about the consignments through which the petitioner is sought to be implicated, but perusal of the statements of these two witnesses reveals that they have stated nothing against the petitioner. It was argued that the petitioner has been implicated in the case merely on the basis of some ambiguity in the documents and because of the dubious role of the concerned authorities in collusion with the actual importer. However, the prosecution miserably failed to place on record any evidence which connects the petitioner with the alleged offence.