2023 (6) TMI 327 - HC - Customs

Convictions upheld for criminal conspiracy and forgery in DEPB credits case

The High Court upheld the convictions and sentences of A1 and A5 for criminal conspiracy and forgery related to DEPB credits. The court found their guilt ... Criminal conspiracy in order to get ineligible Duty Entitlement Pass Book - showing realization of Foreign Exchange against export of coloured water and mis-declared the customs as high quality printing ink for refilling catridges - offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Sections 468, 467 r/w 471 and 420 IPC and Sections 132 and 135 of CS Act. HELD THAT:- The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that the accused fabricated the BRC's in the name of M/s.Prime Stones and Monuments, M/s.Sri Mahalakshmi Iron and Steel and M/s.Seven Star Global Logistics as if the same were issued by the Bank of Saurashtra, George Town, Chennai and Dhanalakshmi Bank, George Town, Chennai and also involved in affixing the fabricated rubber stamp of the Bank. By using the said BRC's they have submitted shipping bills by way of getting ineligible DEPB licence. The further allegation is that the accused have exported coloured water and made a false declaration that they exported high quality ''PRINTING INK FOR REFILLING CARTRIDGES''. Further, A1 to A3 have sold the said licence to various persons for monetary consideration and thereby, enable the bonafide purchaser to use the fraudulent DEPB licence and cause wrongful loss to tune of Rs.33,49,718/- to the Government. P.W.20 clearly deposed that he was working as Chief Manager of Dhanalakshmi Bank, George Town, Chennai from October 2002 to 2004. At that time, A5 was working as an Assistant Manager in the said Bank. A5 was working under him for about nine months and he was well versed with his handwriting, signatures and initials that the current account opening Form of M/s.Sevenstar Global Logistics which is introduced by A1. He further deposed that either the said branch or A5 is not empowered to issue BRC. Therefore, the BRC's issued by A5 to the accused are forged and fabricated one. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/A1 contended that CBI has no authority to register and investigate the case, whereas, to investigate into the contraventions under the customs Act power is given only to the officers of Customs. However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor produced a Letter.No.SC/23a5-4/91 Home (SC) Department, dated 22.07.1992, in which, it is stated that CBI has got jurisdiction to register and investigate the cases involving financial or other interests of the Central Government or Public Sector undertaking under the Central Government. In the case on hand, the prosecution proved that the accused entered into a conspiracy with the other accused and in pursuance of the conspiracy they availed illeligible DEPB by producing the forged BRC and causing loss to the Government. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that Customs Authority can only proceed with the offence under the Customs Act is not acceptable. The scope of revision is very limited. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court had already appreciated and re-appreciated the entire evidence and also given findings and while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence. However, while deciding the revision, this Court has to see whether there is any perversity in appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. On a perusal of the entire records this Court finds that from the evidence of 23, 35, 39, 47, 48 the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner/A1 has committed the charged offences. Further, it is not in dispute that A5 was working as Assistant Manager in the Dhanalakshmi Bank, George Town, Chennai and from the evidence of P.Ws.20 and 21 the prosecution proved that BRC issued by A5 are not genuine one and he was not authorised to issue such BRC and that too in the name of the Branch which is not empowered to issue such BRC and he has issued for the sole reason to get illegal benefits along with A1 and A2. The trial Court rightly found that A1 and A5 has committed the charged offences and convicted and sentenced them, which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. This Court does not find any merit in the revision and there is no perversity in appreciation of evidence by the both Courts below. Hence, these revision cases are liable to be dismissed - The conviction and sentences passed by the Courts below as against A1 and A5 are confirmed - revision dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery for DEPB Credits2. Admissibility of Confession Statements3. Jurisdiction of CBI in Customs Act Offences4. Evidence and Witness TestimoniesSummary:1. Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery for DEPB Credits:The prosecution alleged that A1 to A5, along with the deceased A6, conspired to obtain ineligible Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) credits using forged Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) from Bank of Saurashtra and Dhanalakshmi Bank. They misdeclared exports of coloured water as high-quality printing ink, causing a loss to the Government of India. The trial court found A1 to A5 guilty of offences under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act.2. Admissibility of Confession Statements:A1's confession under Section 108 of the Customs Act was a key piece of evidence. A1 retracted his confession, claiming it was coerced. However, the court noted that A1 did not complain to the Magistrate about coercion when he was produced for remand. The court held that the confession was admissible, corroborated by material evidence and witness testimonies.3. Jurisdiction of CBI in Customs Act Offences:The defense argued that only Customs officials could investigate under the Customs Act, not the CBI. The prosecution countered with a letter from the Home Department granting CBI jurisdiction over cases involving financial interests of the Central Government. The court accepted the prosecution's argument, affirming CBI's jurisdiction in this case.4. Evidence and Witness Testimonies:The prosecution presented 52 witnesses and 251 documents. Key witnesses (P.W.20, P.W.21, P.W.35, P.W.39, P.W.47, and P.W.48) provided testimonies linking A1 and A5 to the conspiracy. Chemical analysis confirmed that the exported material was not high-quality printing ink. The court found the evidence sufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the revisions, confirming the convictions and sentences of A1 and A5. The trial court was directed to secure the custody of the accused to serve the remaining sentence, with the period of detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.