TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (6) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad with Section 135 (1)(a)(ii) and Section 135 (1) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The said Fakruddin became an approver and his statement has been recorded. 3.The petitioner is a partner of a firm by name  Messrs. Ramji Jaisingh & Co., engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding work within the jurisdiction of the Bombay Customs for the last several years. The case has been pending since about 1978. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the year 1982 and as of today, the case has not made any progress and no charge has been framed so far. In fact, on account of the inordinate delay in the trial of the case, the petitioner had to make an application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial or grounds to frame a charge, the accused becomes entitled to an order of discharge. 5.In the present case, broadly the case of the  prosecution is as follows : Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and one Fakruddin and one Abdulla Bhaisaheb (since absconding) conspired to import, illegally, stainless steel circles from Dubai, misdeclaring the same as brass scrap material and they intended to have the same cleared from the Bombay Customs without paying the duty, as they might have been required to pay on import of steel. Their further case is that the goods were to be cleared through the petitioner as the Clearing Agent. The allegation is that all these accused persons conspired to import two consignments for which there would be tw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e accused have resorted to a similar modus operandi in this case also. But the statement clearly shows that no action was taken against the petitioner and that the petitioner had given up the work of Accused No. 1. The second circumstance is that the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (i.e. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 here) had informed Fakruddin (Accused No. 4) that he had made arrangements with the clearing Agents meaning thereby with the Petitioner. The third circumstance is that Fakruddin gave the documents for clearance to this petitioner. However, the petitioner returned these documents saying that they were incomplete. According to Fakruddin, it was Accused No. 3 who had given instructions to the Petitioner for clearance of both the consignments. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....materials in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. The petitioner comes in the picture only after the arrival of the consignments to Bombay. Even at this stage, again, there is nothing to indicate in any of these documents that the Petitioner had made any attempt whatsoever or had planned in any manner whatsoever to have the said consignment containing 75 drums of stainless steel cleared somehow or the other. Mr. Gupte says that it can be said that there is "grave suspicion" as against the petitioner and according to him that is sufficient for the purpose of framing charge as against the petitioner. 10.In my view, if one has regard for all the  statements which are said to be against the petitioner, and if they are considered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y documents and records to the accused before the next date of hearing, which was 28th July 1988. The case reached for hearing on 29th July 1988. It was pointed out on that day that the complainant had failed to furnish copies of the documents and records to the accused and the learned Judge once again gave another opportunity to the complainant to furnish copies of the documents and records and the complainant was also directed to pay costs of the adjournment to each of the accused on that day. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time till the matter reached before Judge Aguiar. The matter was argued before the learned Judge on 27th September 1988 and thereafter for number of days on the question of framing a charge. It is in ....