C.P. RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-657
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on August 21,2018

C.P. Ramakrishnan Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. - (1.)This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order of dismissal dated 10.01.2018, passed by the Trial Court in Cr.M.P. No.1557 of 2017 in C.C. No.5 of 2009, filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., 1973 to discharge accused
(2.)ACB, CBI, Chennai, registered the complaint in Crime No.RC.MA1. 2007.A0030 on 29.06.2007, on a complaint received from Shri.Bhikoo Ram, Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy. The allegation found in the complaint is that Srinivasan [A.1], Superintendent of Central Excise, Trichy, Shri Suresh Kumar Jain [A.3], Director of M/s.Sweety International Private Limited, Chira Bazar, Mumbai and Shri.C.P.Ramakrishnan [A.4], Partner of M/s.Trend Shetter, Goutam Centre, Coimbatore, entered into a criminal conspiracy to defraud and exploit the scheme of the Government of India, namely, Duty Entitlement Exemption Certificate Scheme (DEEC) , exported wrinkled and soiled cloth bits and pieces, by mis-declaring it as genuine goods. In pursuant to the said conspiracy, during the year 2002, Srinivasan (A.1) and Suresh Kumar Jain (A.3), to avail pre-export benefit given to the exporters under DEEC Scheme in the name of M/s.Sweety International Private Limited, imported raw materials to the extent of Rs. 3,54,73,356/- and availed duty exemption entitlement. After importing textile raw material, under the guise of exporting ladies dress [long coat] stuffed wrinkled and soiled cloth bits and pieces in the container, prepared shipping bill. Accused No.1 issued false examination report as if genuine goods were exported and got the duty exemption.
(3.)The petitioner herein, who is arrayed as accused No.4 has filed discharge petition contending that there is no evidence against this petitioner to indicate his involvement in the crime. It is contended before the Trial Court that L.W.43, L.W.44 and L.W.65 alone are the witnesses, who were spoken about this petitioner. The entire reading of their statements does not implicate the petitioner in the offence.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.