R KARUNKAKARAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-515
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on February 15,2012

R KARUNKAKARAN Appellant
VERSUS
INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BY consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner herein seeks a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional and Sessions and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore, and to recall the order made in M.P No.629 of 2009 dated 1.10.2010 in C.C.No.6 of 2008, in which, the trial court proceeded to take cognizance against him by arraying as A.3 based on the charge sheet filed by the respondent for the offence under Secs.120-b, 420, 468, 471 PC r/w 13 (2) r/w 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and to quash the entire proceedings.
(2.) THE facts of the case which led to filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner and others are as follows: One Gunasekar (A.2), is the proprietor of Appu Apparels Exports, dealing with export of readymade garments. One Muthukumarasamy (A.1), the petitioner herein (A.3) and one Selvaraj (A.4) were working as Superintendents of Customs and Central Excise ICD Coimbatore from 2001 to 2003. According to the prosecution, they entered into a criminal conspiracy with A.2 and cheated the Customs Department by way of preparing false shipping bills, falsely declaring the Port of destination as European Countries and also mis-declaring the FOB values on the Shipping bills by 'over invoicing' with the dishonest intention to draw more duty drawback amount, and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Customs Department/Government of India to the tune of Rs.1,36,01,773/- with the corresponding wrongful gain accruing to the accused persons.
(3.) ON investigation, it was found that A.2 submitted 72 fabricated shipping bills by falsely declaring that the consignments contained Cotton Mill made Men's Tailored Collar Shirts, which are eligible for duty drawback, when actually the consignments for export contained worthless materials. It was also found that A.2 submitted invoices and other documents along with Shipping Bills and after the export, had claimed duty drawback through Customs Handling Agent, which were processed by the Examiner/Inspectors of Central Excise,recommended and forwarded by the accused A.1, A.3 and A.4. And at the relevant times, he obtained sanction from the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.;


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