JEEWAN MEHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing any independent agency to conduct impartial enquiry against the role of the respondents in coercively taking six post-dated advance cheques from him without any liability or notice regarding any proceedings. Further prayer has been made for quashing the five complaints, Annexures P.3 to P.7 and five notices of accusation, Annexures P.11 to P.15 issued under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, "the N.I.Act") against the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar on 18.12.2015. Direction has also been sought to respondent No.2 to return the amount of Rs. 5 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f 20.1.2004 till the date of actual payment, for which three pay orders dated 20.11.2004 had been taken from the petitioner.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. During the years 1995- 96 to 1999-2000, M/s Swastika Enterprises the petitioner-firm had obtained Advance licences issued by the office of the Regional Joint Director General, Foreign Trade, Amritsar as per the Export and Import policy for the relevant years announced by the Ministry of Commerce. Under the Advance licences, import of raw material was allowed at concessional rate of customs duty on the condition that the importer shall make export of the goods manufactured out of the material imported. Each advance licence was to be got redeemed from the Director General Foreign Trade (DGFT) for which the importer of the material had to submit the documents relating to the import and export of the goods. In the case of the petitioner firm, the raw materials were acrylic fibre and synthetic waste and the goods to be exported were blankets. On 2.8.2001, officers from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Amritsar Unit (DRI) visited the business premises of the firm and seized almost all the records including the ledgers for the years 1995-96 to 1999-2000. On 8.5.2003, officers of the DRI recorded statement of the petitioner concerning the advance licences taken by the firm during the years 1995-96 onwards regarding the imports and exports made and the redemption of the licences by the DGFT etc. The petitioner as partner of the firm explained everything to the said officer.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.