Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (7) TMI 777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....P.C. has been filed by the applicant Salil Bargoti, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Criminal Case No.05 of 2021, under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. (RC 3(E)/2006 EOW-I DLI (C.B.I. vs. Salil Bargoti and another), pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad till trial. The F.I.R. of the present case was lodged by Arun Tandon, Additional Director General, D.R.I. Mumbai, against eight companies, eight named persons and other unknown persons for the offences under Sections 120B/ 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and other substantive offences thereof in which the firm of the applicant stands at serial no. 4 in the list of accused firms/persons with the allegation of misuse of Duty Exemptio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and other substantive offences thereof was submitted against the applicant and co-accused Vinayak Datta Ram Patkar only, copy of the said charge sheet is annexure no. 2 to the affidavit. In so far as the other four co-accused persons are concerned, they were not charge sheeted. The trial court vide order dated 2.3.2021 took cognizance upon the charge sheet against the applicant and the co-accused Vinayak Datta Ram Patkar and summoned them to face trial, copy of summoning order is annexure no. 3 to the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is proprietor of M/s Krishna Handicrafts, T. Saket, New ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It is argued that the applicant had claimed that he had already made export to the tune of Rs. 31,956,588.00 (Three Crores Nineteen Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only) against Advance Licence No. 2910000727 issued to them. He had submitted 18 Shipping Bills to the DGFT Authorities as a token of having already fulfilled the Export Obligation in respect of the said advance licences. 13 Shipping Bills were purportedly made from M/s Krishn Handicraft to M/s Catco 4975, Clark Howell, HWY, SW Site, 3J, College Park, GA-30349-681, USA. The custom house agent facilitated the import/export clearance of their consignment in consultation with custom authorities. The export consignment of the applicant were taken care by deal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the C.B.I. has further argued that the case of Siddharth (Supra) is distinguishable on facts. The issue therein was related as to whether an accused has to be arrested as a prerequisite formality to take charge sheet on record or not in which the Apex Court held that it was no such requirement. It is argued that cognizance has been taken on the charge sheet on 02.3.2021, bailable warrants were issued against the applicant and then on 25.8.2021 non bailable warrants were issued against the applicant after which further on 12 dates non bailable warrants were issued and the applicant is absconding till date. It is further argued that the applicant has even filed a 482 Cr.P.C. application being Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 12708 of 2021 b....