Ajai Lamba, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. Case No. 1635 of 2009 titled 'Jogendra Singh and 14 others v. State of U.P. and Sri R.K. Singh' and Crl. Misc. Case No. 1407 of 2009 titled 'Raghuraj Singh and 2 others v. State of U.P. and Shri R.K. Singh'. Both the petitions are being disposed of vide a common order, because in both the cases the petitioners seek relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') of quashing charge -sheet bearing No. 35 -A of 2003, dated 29 -10 -2008 filed by Police Station Krishna Nagar, Lucknow in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Lucknow arising out of case crime No. 14 of 2002 in which cognizance of offence under Sections 452, 342, 504, 506, 392, 367, 193, 211, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471, 347, 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken vide order dated 4 -3 -2009.
(2.) FOR reference to record, Crl. Misc. Case No. 1635 of 2009 titled 'Jogendra Singh and 14 others v. State of U.P. and Sri R.K. Singh' is being taken up. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners namely Shri Tripurari Ray, Advocate, assisted by Shri Ajai Kumar Singh, Advocate, that the petitioners are all employees of the Government of India serving in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, ranging from Secretary level to the level of Sepoy. The facts culminating in filing of impugned charge -sheet, in brief, as pleaded on behalf of the petitioners, are that officers of the Directorate of Revenue (for short 'DRI') intercepted consignments of cargo at Mumbai which had been cleared by customs authorities at ICD, Hyderabad. It was found that chalk powder/marble powder was being exported as "Neproxen". Total value of the goods was in excess of rupees three crores. During the investigation of the case under the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'Customs Act'), one accused namely Vimal Kumar Jain gave the name of respondent No. 2 - Shri R.K. Singh as the person who had helped the accused in clearing the hurdles at the port where consignment had been intercepted by the DRI. For the said purpose, respondent No. 2 who was then posted as Inspector of Central Excise at Lucknow travelled to Mumbai for which relevant arrangements had been made by the other accused facing proceedings under the Customs Act.
(3.) THE above -noted incriminating material having come on record, notices were issued to Shri R.K. Singh (respondent No. 2), for the purpose of inquiry/investigation by the officers of the DRI. Respondent No. 2 did not respond to the notices and, therefore, on 16 -2 -2001, during the morning hours, the DRI staff of Regional Unit, Lucknow with two officers of DRI, New Delhi namely P.K. Katiyar and D.P. Saxena (petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 in this petition) came to the residence of R.K. Singh and took him to Delhi. Even Vivek Chaturvedi, petitioner No. 7 from Lucknow office came to the house of respondent No. 2 along with the above -named persons.;