TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 301929 dated 22.02.2005, 398039 dated 04.03.2005, 223666 dated 05.03.2005, 223665 dated 05.03.2005, 156114 dated 04.03.2005, 221128 dated 07.02.2005, 221127 dated 07.02.2005, 796990 dated 04.02.2005, 233679 dated 20.05.2002, 234222 dated 25.05.2005, 568900 dated 16.05.2005, 234223 dated 25.05.2005, 877041 dated 27.05.2005 which are mentioned in detail under the heading index qua application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 3. The present case stems out of a complaint case wherein the DRI seeks to prosecute the present accused alleging that the accused have imported the items declaring to have thickness of 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm, instead of actual thickness of 1.4 to 1.5 mm. Since, on the different thickness item,, different import duty are charged, the accused herein have evaded the import duty which otherwise would have been payable per law, if the same would have been disclosed truthfully. 4. It is further stated that voluminous documents were seized from the premises of Sh. Raj Kumar Anand alongwith Indian currency from the residential premises way back in 2005 when offence is said to have been committed. It is also submitted that the laptop belonging to Sh. Raj Kumar Anand was al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontention of the DRI 8. It has been argued on behalf of the Ld. Senior Counsel of DRI that all the physical copy has been seized but they could not be located but must have been with the department, as it was seized way back in 2005. However, the physical copy of every document which is being mentioned in the Annexure - A, Annexure - B, Annexure - C, Annexure - D, Annexure - E, Annexure - F or Annexure - G have been uploaded on the computer in the due course of business and same have been locked which cannot be tampered with. I have gone through annexures minutely. 9. Specific screenshots of bill of entries have been provided where it is alleged that this document which pertained to be bought before this Court to establish that mis-leading/false number of thickness have been given as an input to evade import duty. It is further submitted that in due course of business, these documents could not be procured as they are confidential documents and it is only at the higher forum or authorization, the same can be procured. Case Law Relied Upon 10. The following judgments were cited by Ld. Counsels to support their respective submissions: • Rajender Prasad v. Nar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omic offence. 15. Another set of arguments on behalf of the accused have been that the accused is being taken by surprise and specifically at this stage when the pre-charge evidence have already been concluded, however, this Court is of the opinion that the right to cross-examine will be furnished and it is not that these documents have been created meanwhile but were uploaded during the course of the business. Henceforth, the argument is not sustainable. 16. The argument on behalf of the accused that when the physical copy of such documents were already under the control/possession of the DRI and the same has not been brought forth before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the reliability of such document and such document being read as the primary and the secondary evidence is a different legal issue wherein the DRI has to satisfy this Court under which head of primary or secondary evidence the same shall be tendered. The same cannot be decided at this particular stage. 17. Further, the arguments of the Ld. Counsel is that the documents were confidential and the same has not be procured by the authority at the time of the prosecution, this Court is of the opin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation has been moved, the diligence with which the complaint has been initiated after 17 years and despite the untiring efforts of the Department for all the 17 years, have failed to put forth the document which admittedly have been seized by their officers and reluctance with which instead of locating such document, the audacity with which the second application has been moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to prove such documents which were uploaded upon computer during the course of the business is deprecated. The lack of vigilance and diligence on the part of the Department speaks volume and responsible officer be attributed by the Principal, ADG, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit B-3 & 4, 6th Floor, Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003, and the cost shall be deducted from the salary of such officer and if there are series of officer then proportionate reduction of salary be deducted from such officers. In the case the Principal, ADG, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit B-3 & 4, 6th Floor, Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 fails to attribute such negligence on the concerned officer, the cost shall be ultimately deducted from the salary of ....