TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable information which is as follows: One Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria promoted M/s Annapurna Yarn Fabrics and M/s Blumenfeld Ltd. for indulging in evasion of customs duty by making false import/export documents supported with false certification issued by the officials of Customs, Calcutta and Silk Board, Bhagalpur by adopting dubious methods. On February 17, 1995 Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria obtained quantity based advance licence No.P/K/02283861/C dated February 17, 1995 from the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Calcutta for import of 21,000 kgs. of duty free 100% Mulberry Raw Silk with cost insurance and freight (CIF) value of Rs. 1,53,73,815/-. The licensee was under the obligation to export 17,500 kgs. of 100% Mulberry Raw Silk madeups other than dupion yarn at F.O.B. value of Rs. 2,07,54,650/-. He had also applied for another licence for similar items under advance licence file No.02/79/040/0020/AM/96 dated April 20, 1995 for import of Mulberry Raw Silk for Rs. 82,36,176/- in favour of M/s Blumenfeld Ltd. 3. On April 18, 1995 Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria and other associates of M/s Blumenfeld Ltd. applied for a quantum based advance licence under licence file No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he articles found in the containers in presence of authorised clearing agent of the aforesaid exporters. These goods were packed in the containers for consignment to M/s Artwai Trading Ltd., P.O. Box. No.8595, Dubai, UAE vide contact no.80/Cal/95 dated March 23, 1995 and M/s Omran Sayed Trading, P.O. Box. No. 53538, Dubai, UAE. Shri Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria being the proprietor of M/s Annapurna Yarn Fabrics and Director of M/s Blumenfeld Ltd. hatched deep rooted conspiracy with the officials of Calcutta Customs including the present petitioner and the officials of Silk Board, Bhagalpur for making bogus export by making false declaration and preparing false documents and thereby cheated Government of India by evading custom duty to the tune of Rs. 29,63,889/-. 5. On May 4, 1995 Shri Kishorepuria in connivance with the officials of Calcutta Customs filed a complaint before the Officer-in-charge of Jorasanko Police Station to cover up the fraud and misdeed detected by the Customs officials. Similarly, on May 11, 1995 Shri Kishorepuria in connivance with the officials of Calcutta Customs filed another complaint before the Officer-in-charge of Metiabruz Police Station to cover up fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms Act, 1962. Mr. Sinha has also cited unreported decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in "Sunil Kumar V. Central Bureau of Investigation" (CRR No.250 of 2015 with CRR No.677 of 2015 with CRR No.649 of 2015 with CRR No.1228 of 2015 with CRR No.1556 of 2015 with CRR No.4040 of 2015 decided on February 11, 2016) by which Learned Single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the criminal proceeding for violation of the provisions of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. He has also relied on the decision of our High Court in "Ganesh Dutt Sharma V. Central Bureau of Investigation" reported in (2012) 2 C.Cr.LR(Cal) 678 in support of his above contention. 8. Mr. Asraf Ali, Learned Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation contends that the Inspector of Police who investigated the case under Delhi Special Police Establishment, has submitted chargesheet, which was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police as Officer-incharge of the police station under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that the sanctioning authority has considered the entire allegation reflected in the statement of witnesses and the documents collected by the Inve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the criminal proceeding against the petitioner on the ground that no offence was made out against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned Single Judge made a scrutiny of the entire office note where officials of different ranks gave their views and the opinion for issuing work order was the opinion of a committee consisting of the petitioner and other officials and as such Learned Single Judge was of the view that no offence was made out against the petitioner. However, in this report Learned Single Judge also observed that the order of granting sanction for prosecution was passed without application of mind as it was not clear whether sanctioning authority had considered the office notes where views have been expressed by the officials of different sections about floating of tender and issuance of work order. In the present case it appears from the sanction order of the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Calcutta dated August 29, 2003 that the sanctioning authority has duly considered the allegations reflected in the statement of witnesses and the documents collected during investigation. It appears from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done, or intended to be done in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or the rules or regulations. (2) No proceeding other than a suit shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act without giving the Central Government or such officer a month's previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof, or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause." 11. In "Public Prosecutor V. R. Raju" reported in (1972) 2 SCC 410 the Supreme Court considered the provision of Section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and came to the conclusion that the prosecution was barred by the said provision of Section 40(2) of the said Act. In this report the respondents were prosecuted for violation of Rules 9, 53, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 66 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable under Section 9(b) and (d) of the said Act and also under Section 420 read with Section 511 and under Section 109 of the In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pari materia with the provision of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962. In "Sunil Kumar V. Central Bureau of Investigation" (unreported decision in CRR 250 of 2015 decided on February 11, 2016) Learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the criminal proceeding against some customs officers for noncompliance of the provision of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in "Public Prosecutor V. R. Raju" reported in (1972) 2 SCC 410 (supra). Mr. Ali, Learned Counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation submits that limitation prescribed under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be made applicable in criminal prosecution. He has put forward this argument relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in "Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Guntur V. Ramdev Tobacco Co." reported in (1991) 2 SCC 119. In this report the Supreme Court has clarified that the expression "other illegal proceeding" in Section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 before its amendment in 1973 does not include the adjudication and penalty proceeding under the said Act and as s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kumar Kishorepuria as the penalty was realised from him. There is specific provision in Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for imposition of penalty for an attempt to export goods improperly from India. The present petitioner as an Examining Officer of the Customs aided and abetted the principal accused Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria in making an attempt to export goods improperly from India and for which the principal accused has paid the penalty imposed on him under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 14. The petitioner as an Examining Officer of the Customs omitted to perform duty in order to assist the principal accused Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria in his attempt to export goods improperly from India. The provision of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 which is in pari materia with the provision of Section 40(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 lays down that an officer of the Government cannot be prosecuted after expiry of three months from the date of accrual of cause of action and without giving previous notice in writing of one month for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of the said Act. The word "Act" as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897 shall include ....