STATE TR. INSP. OF POLICE Vs. A. ARUN KUMAR
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on December 17,2014

State Tr. Insp. Of Police Appellant
VERSUS
A. Arun Kumar Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GHANSHYAM AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-5-206] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. SURESH KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-122] [REFERRED TO]
PASUPATHI VS. VADIVAZHAGI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-156] [REFERRED TO]
SIVA VALLABHANENI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
VILAS RAO GHODESWAR VS. CBI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-4-51] [REFERRED TO]
SARVESH DHEER VS. MANJU UPENDRA SANDILYA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
DIWANA VS. JAIPAL AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
RAHIM KHAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-208] [REFERRED TO]
VIBHUTI THAKUR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2021-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL MISHRA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-11-89] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP YADAV VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ NANDAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM KISHORE PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-2-104] [REFERRED TO]
A. PARTHASARATHY AND ORS. VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-65] [REFERRED TO]
MAUVIN GODINHO VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(SC)-2018-1-113] [REFERRED TO]
MAUVIN GODINHO VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-53] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAGONI PRABHAKAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL YADAV & ANR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-115] [REFERRED TO]
M. NAGARAJU VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
N.RAJESWARI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-232] [REFERRED TO]
KALANITHI MARAN CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-11-95] [REFERRED TO]
HAWA SINGH BENIWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-4-124] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
J. MURALIDHAR GOUD VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANDAS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-496] [REFERRED TO]
MAFIBEN KEVABHAI RABARI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-8-206] [REFERRED TO]
DEV NATH VERMA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-249] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH KAPOOR @ O.P. KAPOOR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH JAISWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-131] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA PRATAP SHAHI @ PAPPU SHAHI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKUWAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-1-434] [REFERRED TO]
JASPAL KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-279] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-4-191] [REFERRED TO]
SRIPAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-1-434] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH DHAR TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-196] [REFERRED TO]
V K SHARMA VS. STATE OF M P & ANR [LAWS(MPH)-2016-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
S.JUNAITH VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-436] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VS. S.SELVI [LAWS(SC)-2017-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATI TAMANG VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(CAL)-2024-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
JAYA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-1-161] [REFERRED TO]
SEBASTIAN P.J. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-365] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-1-87] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Madras in Crl. R.C. No.106 of 2009 whereby it set aside the order of the Special Court dated 19.12.2008 dismissing the application for discharge preferred by the Respondents herein.
(2.)On 08.02.2007 RC-1/E/2007-CBI/EOW/CHENNAI was registered under sections 120B read with section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 477-A IPC and section 13 (2) read with section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POC Act for short) and section 32 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the allegations that accused nos. 1-3 named therein had entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused no.4 who was Appraiser of Customs, Inland Container Depot (ICD), Irugur, Coimbatore and with accused no.5, Inspector of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Irugur, Coimbatore during 2004-2005 and in pursuance of said conspiracy had filed false and fabricated documents to claim duty draw back to the tune of Rs.2.14 crores (approximately) from ICD, Irugur. It was alleged that said accused nos.1-3 had filed certain Shipping Bills and that the export documents were assessed by accused no.4 i.e. respondent no.1 and after such assessment the goods were examined by accused no.5 i.e. respondent No.2. After completion of the customs formalities the goods were stuffed in containers which were sealed and transported to Cochin for consignment to Dubai. It was alleged that accused no.1 produced different sets of forged shipping bills by adding a digit before the total quantity of shipment thereby inflating the value of shipment and fraudulently claimed duty draw back. These forged shipping bills were endorsed by the respondents. A chart was relied upon to show how the total quantity and the present market value differed by addition of a digit. The chart was as follows: JUDGEMENT_54_LAWS(SC)12_2014_1.html
(3.)A regular case was registered on the allegations as aforesaid and investigation was conducted by CBI which later filed charge sheet against said five accused on 28.04.2008. The allegations against respondent nos. 1 & 2 were:
"......... A-4 Arun Kumar while preparing GR Forms is supposed to assess the value in Indian rupees for the value mentioned in US dollars by the Exporter. While preparing GR Forms, A-1 Manish Kumar Jain and A-2 R.V. Shanmugam prepared two such documents one showing correct weight in kg and value in US dollars and the other having inflated weight in kg and value in US dollars. A-1 Manish Kumar Jain and A-2 R.V. Shanmugam have put two before the weight inflating by 20,000 kgs and one before the value in US dollars inflating it by 1 lakh dollars. But A-4 Arun Kumar while endorsing it in the reverse of the form assessed and calculated the value of export in rupees and wrote the same in his own handwriting under his signature.

But in the present market value mentioned in the GR Forms by the Exporter, a digit five has been added before the value in rupees, thus inflating the value by Rs.50 lakhs. This value, of course could not be the correct value if calculate at the rate of Rs.43.55 per US dollar. This was deliberately overlooked by A-4 Arun Kumar and he failed to prepare the GR Forms in consultation with the Shipping Bills where there is a difference of Rs.50 lakhs in each and every GR Forms submitted by the Exporter. When such malpractices by the Officers of ICD, Irugur came to the knowledge of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, A-4 Arun Kumar with the connivance of A-5 Santhosh Kumar, Sr. Tax Assistant (STA) destroyed all the Shipping Bills and A-5 Santosh Kumar made corrections in the Shipping Bills Register as instructed by A-4 Arun Kumar and Shri Bindusaran."

"..... In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy A-1 Manish Kumar Jain and A-2 R.V. Shanmugam prepared two sets of Shipping Bills and GR Forms and exported some stainless steel utensils in the name of M/s Ayyappan Industries, M/s Shri J.S. Babu Inc. and M/s Samy Metal Industries. In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, A-1 Manish Kumar Jain and A-3 N. Rajan prepared the shipping bills. The documents were filed by A-1 Manish Kumar Jain and A-2 R. V. Shanmugam at ICD, Irugur with the connivance of A- 4 Arun Kumar who allowed the export of less quantity and entered inflated quantity in the Shipping Bills Register in conspiracy with A-5 Santhosh Kumar, STA and also filed wrong GR Forms to RBI. But before the duty draw back was allowed, the process was stopped by the intervention of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence and the accused persons removed/destroyed the documents available with them and tried to replace the documents with the actual export documents by reconstruction process.

While the actual exports was only worth Rs.3.22 crores, with eligible duty draw back of Rs.35,000/- by forging the Shipping Bills, GR Forms and Shipping Bills Register, the accused persons attempted to claim inflated duty draw back of Rs.2.5 crores on inflated export of Rs.22.72 crores and thereby attempted to cheat the Government of India."



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