- (1.)THESE Criminal Appeals are directed against the conviction of all the accused, who were convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/= in default to undergo R. I. ,for Six months for each of the offences under Sections 120 (B) IPC r/w Sections 7, 12 and 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; under Section 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, except A. 5 who was convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/= in default to undergo ri for three months for each of the offences under Section 120 (B) IPC r/w. 7,12 and 13 (2) r/2. 13 (1) (d) of the P. C. Act and under Section 12 of the P. C. Act. The sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently.
(2.)THE brief facts of the case prosecution is as follows:-Between the period 1. 12. 200 and 18. 5. 2001, A. 1 was working as superintendent of Central Excise Preventive Unit at Dindigul. A. 2 was working as inspector in the same Unit from December 2000 to March 2001 and thereafter promoted as Superintendent till 18. 5. 2000. A. 3 and A. 4 were working as inspectors in the same Unit during the relevant period. P. W. 2 was working as inspector in the same Unit from 13. 6. 2000 to 7. 3. 2001 and thereafter was working as Inspector in Central Excise, Vadipatti Range. A. 5 was a lessee of m/s. Bojaraj Textiles Mills (B-Unit) at Silukkuvarpatti, Nilakkottai under the lease agreements Exs. P. 42 and P. 43. The said mill was engaged in converting the cotton into various types of yarns. A. 5 prepared invoices as if the finished yarn were sold to M/s. Rajamanickam, of which , he was the Proprietor. The allegation against him is that the central excise duty was paid on the value shown in the invoices which were lesser than prevailing market value. After the receipt of the yarn from M/s. Bojarj Textiles Mills, in his name, he again raised invoices at a lower value in the name of M/s. Lokanayagi Cotton Company, thiruppur of which his wife Mrs. Logambal was the Proprietrix. Thereafter he was selling the yarn to other purchasers at market value which was higher and thus the same did not attract excise duty.
(3.)ON 1. 1. 2000, A. 1 to A. 4 and P. W. 2 inspected M/s. Bojaraj Textiles Mills and obtained statement Ex. P. 22 from D. Chandrasekaran, Spinning master of the said Textiles Mills and prima facie found a case of duty evasion by A. 5. A case was registered against M/s. Bojaraj Textiles Mills by the Preventive Unit, dindigul Division in OR. No:18/2000. When A. 1 to A. 5 and Lokanayagi Cotton company were directed to appear and produce documents, they did not turn up. Based on Ex. P. 37, letter dated 29. 12. l2000, P. W. 5, Gandhi, who was working as assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dindigul Division, requested the assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Anti Evasion) Coimbatore to conduct a search in the premises of A. 5 and his wife's concerns and recover the documents relating to the sale of cotton yarn. Accordingly, documents including Exs. P. 9 to P. 11 invoices used by A. 5 were seized and sent to the Dindigul Central Excise preventive Unit under Ex. P. 8. Exs. P. 12 and 13 are invoice books used by m/s. Lokanayaki Cotton Company which were recovered from the said Company at tiruppur. The said documents were handed over to A. 1 by P. W. 5 for further investigation. As per the working sheet Ex. P. 6 and calculation sheet Ex. P. 7, the duty evasion of A. 5 for the period from 2. 4. 2000 to 13. 11. 2000 was worked out at Rs. 9. 07,979/=. In the meanwhile A. 2 was promoted as Superintendent, but for want of vacancy, he was not given the posting. P. w. 2 was an active member in the Executive Officers' Association of the Central Excise Inspectors and he wanted to get retention at Dindigul itself on his promotion. On 11. 5. 2001, A. 2 informed P. W. 2 that A. 1 had agreed to settle the case against A. 5 by getting rs. 2 lakhs by replacing the vital documents and the said sum was to be paid by a. 5 on 12. 5. 2001. P. w. 2 was requested to be present by 5. 30 pm. , at Parvathi lodge, Dindigul on that date as requested by A. 1 and A. 2 so that the money can be received from A. 5. P. W. 2 expressed his inability and informed A. 2 that he will be available only on 15. 5. 2001. Again on 14. 5. 2001, A. 2 informed and invited P. w. 2 at the instance of A. 1 to come to Parvathy Lodge, Dindigul where a. 5 Rajamanickam will give the money.