AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bains, J.
Criminal Misc. 4966M and 4968M of 1982 filed by M/s Malerkotla Auto Udyog, Nabha Road, Malerkota, and Criminal Misc. Nos. 4970M and 4972M of 1982 filed by M/s Pioneer Tape Company, Nabha Road, Malerkotla, will be disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same proceedings. However, for reference, facts from Criminal Misc. No. 4966M of 1982 are given as under :
M/s Malerkotla Auto Udyog, Malerkotla, is a parternship firm in which R.K. Veama, P.K. Verma and R.K. Nayyer are partners. R.K. Verma applied for Hydraalic brake hose, Acrylic Plastic sheets and other items to the Director of Industries, Punjab, for the issue of Essentiality Certificate. He was issued the said Essentiality Certificate on 31.5.1966. On the basis of this certificate the petitionerfirm was issued import licence No. P/SS/1576030 dated 7.11.1966 for Acrylic plastic sheets only for the manufacture of cars,. scooters, wind screens for the value of Rs. 20,790/ by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi. A letter of credit in favour of the supplying firm, namely, M/s Niehiman Co. Ltd., New Osaka Building, Japan was got issued by Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Bombay, on 14th October, 1967. Another letter of credit in favour of the supplying firm, namely, M/s Iwi & Co. Ltd., Japan, was got issued by Dena Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, on 30.5.1967.
11 cylinders for A.P. Sheets making machines were imported against the aforementioned import licence and its delivery was taken at Bombay on 18.9.1967 by M/s B.C. Buhariwala and Sons, Customs Clearing Agent for the petitionerfirm. Besides that, 7 crates of Acrylic Plastic Sheets were imported against this licence and its delivery was taken at Bombay by the Custom Clearing Agent M/s Sea Sky Service, Nawab Building, Dr. D.N. Road, Bombay, on 16.1.1968.
The aforesaid goods were despatched to the petitionerfirm by goods train. Seven crates of A.P. Sheets after clearance from the Customs were kept in the Bombay Ware Housing from 18.1.1968 to 27.1.1968, when R.K. Nayyar approached Shewa Udyog and took delivery of the A.P Sheets from Bombay Ware Housing after giving due acknowledgements the Bombay Ware Housing. On 27.1.1968, R.K. Nayyar made a payment of Rs. 23,000/ through Demand Draft No. 619269 dated 27.1.1968 issued in favour of M/s Shewa Udyog, Bombay.
R.K. Nayyar, vide letter dated 9.4.1968 falsely intimated the District Industries Officer, Malerkotla, regarding the arrival of 7 crates of A.P. Sheets and 11 cylinders for making A.P. Sheets machines and requested him to inspect the same before manufacturing could be started.
Inspector Gobind Singh of the Office of District Industries Department, Malerkotla, reported on 1.4.1968 that the petitioner firm had been found closed for the last two years and that they did not have any machinery for A.P. Sheets and as such the Head Office may be,in formed accordingly. He, through another report dated 17.4.1968, reported that even though he visited the factory twice, he did not find the proprietor there. The petitionerfirm manipulated false report dated 13.6.1968 from Inspector Sohan Lal stating therein that 7 crates and 11 cylinders imported against the licence in question were found by him in the factory premises for which no credence was given by the District Industries Officer, Malerkotla. On receipt of 11 cylinders at Delhi the same were kept in the car garage of official residence of Shri J.C. Verma father of S/Shri R.K. Verma and P.K. Verma from where the same were sold to M/s Jobson Industries, Bomaby and M/s Bhopal Plastics, Gwalior, by R.K. Verma and P.K. Verma. The receipt dated 20th September 1969 issued by R.K. Verma shows the sale of eight cylinders for Rs. 8240.00 to M/s Bhopal Plastics, Gwalior (M.P.) and receipt dated Ist August, 1969, shows sale of sixty cylinders, by P.K. Verma to M/s Jobson Industries, Bombay for Rs. 5871000. The petitionerfirm caught fire on 4.6.1967. According to report dated 3.4.1968 of Shri Gurcharan Singh, District Industries Officer, Malerkotla, the firm had no machinery and there was no production.
On the above said allegations, a complaint was filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports New Delhi, in the year 1981. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, found sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners under section 120B IPC read with section 5 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 and summoned the petitioner for 2nd February, 1981 vide order dated 2.1.1981. The petitioners,. instead of appearing before the Magistrate, challenged the said order by way of revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the petition, on the ground that no revision could lie against an interlocutory order, vide his order dated 4th September, 1982.
It is against the summoning order of the Magistrate and the dismissal order of the Additional Sessions Judge that the present petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the aforesaid orders.
Admittedly, the allegations in the complaint disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner and Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioners has not assailed these allegations. He has only raised the plea that the complaint has been filed after a long delay and the same amounts to abuse of the process of Courts.
I do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Sibal. No limitation is provided for economic offences. Section 2 of the Economic Offences (In applicability of Limitation) Act, 1947 specifically excludes the provision of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so far as the economic offences are concerned, and entry 11 of the Schedule attached to the aforesaid Act finds mention of the "Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947". The petitioner have allegedly misutilized the imported material under the licence dated 7th November, 1966. The allegations against the petitioners are very serious. As already observed, no time limit is fixed for filing the complaints in the economic offences. An affidavit has also been filed by Bhupinder Kumar, Inspector C.B.I./C.I.U.I., 8th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi, regarding filing the complaint in the Court of Special Magistrate, Punjab, Patiala, which is in the following terms:
"That case R.C. 6/75 CBI/CIAI, New Delhi, under section 5(39) read SC of 1947, against Shri J.C. Verma, Deputy Commissioner (Machinery), Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, father/uncle of the petitioners, was registered on 5.2.1975 for possession of disproportion assets.
That during the course of investigation of this case, it had revealed that, besides possession of dispropationateate assets to the tune of over Rs. 4.5 lacs, Shri J.C. Verma had abused his official position and committed offence punishable under section 5 (2) read with section 5(1) of the prevention of Corruption act in the matter of allotment of stainless steel sheets to M/s Pioneer Tape Company, Malerkotla.
That it had revealed that M/s Pioneer Tape Company, Malerkotla, and M/s Malerkotla Auto Udyog, Malerkotla, were sister concerns of the petitioners and that both the Companies had misultilized materials imported against different import licences in contravention of section 5 of the Imports and Export Control Act of 1947.
That thus investigation of six cases i.e., possession of dispropationateate assets, abuse of official position and the present four complaints which involved over 200 witnesses and over 2000 documents had to be carried out simultaneously at distant places like Bombay, Delhi, Bhopal, Chandigarh, malerkotla etc.
That documents had also to be referred to the Technical Adviser and the C.F.S.L. (Central Forensic Science Laboratory), New Delhi, for scrutiny and option.
That on completion of the investigation in the year 1977, the matter was referred to the Chief controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, for consideration of the filing of the complaint which was received back in the he month of August, 1978. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Government of Punjab for consent which is prerequiste for prosecution of the accused petitioners which was granted in June, 1980 and then the complaint was filed before Special Judicial Magistrate, Punjab, Patiala, in the month of January 1981.
That on the basis of abovesaid complaint, Special Judicial Magistrate, Punjab, Patiala, issued summons against the petitioners but instead of putting appearance before the court, they filed a revision petition against the summoning order and got the proceedings stayed from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala who latter on dismissed the revision petition, vide order dated 4.9.1982.
That the petitioners have again preferred the present petition in this Hon''ble Court against the aforesaid order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, which is pending since 17.9.1982 and the proceedings have been stayed"
In my view, the circumstances explained by the aforesaid Inspector of the C.B.I. in his affidavit, as quoted above, show that the period from the year 1975 till date has been sufficiently and properly explained, and no delay was caused in completing the investigation. Thus, there is no merit in the contentions of Mr. Sibal that complaint has been filed belatedly and that it was the abuse of the process of the Court.
Mr. Sibal then canvassed that there was no necessity of getting the requisite consent of the Government of Punjab for the prosecution of the petitioners. Be as it may, since there is no limitation provided for the economic offences and the delay stands fully explained, it cannot amount to the abuse of the process of the Court.
It is matter of common knowledge that the economic offenders have paralysed our economy and due to the activities of the economic offenders, unaccounted money has superseded the white money. Prices of each and every commodity are soaring high and it has become very difficult for the common man to keep his body and soul together. Such like offenders have started indulging in selling spurious goods, hoarding black marketing and smuggling. It is only rarely that persons like the petitioners, are brought to the Courts. The intention of the Legislature in not providing limitation for the launching of complaints involving economic offences is well founded, as complicated investigations are involved therein. In such matters, delay, if any, does not make out a case for quashing the proceedings.
Thus, I am of the view that no case is made out for quashing the proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed with costs. The petitioners shall pay Rs. 1000/ (Rupees one thousand only) as costs to the State in each case.
Petitioner dismissed.