Criminal Application No. 3465 of 2005 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Jun 2005
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence the Application is disposed of by pass the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1111. Hence the Application is disposed of by pass the following order: (i) In arrest Respondent No.1 Applicant connection 5 : ::: 5 : 5 : investigation pertaining F.No.V/PI/THI/12-5/2005 Central Excise Department, Thane-1 M/s.Apex Corporation, M/s.Muni Trade Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Globe Traders, M/s.Mansa Traders M/s.Venkatesh Mercantile…
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel appearing parties. When earlier Application No.3319 2005 Applicant before Court, passed Court directing 72 notice Applicant before arresting him. This Court granted liberty Applicant Sessions Court notice given. The learned learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the Application for grant of anticipatory bail made by the Applicant.
It pertinent earlier application Applicant before Court, a submission Respondents offence committed Applicant section 9(1)(bbbb) Central Excise Act,
1944. Section 9A Act 1944 provides offences 2 : ::: 2 : 2 : section 9 deemed non-cognizable within meaning Code Criminal Procedure,
1973. Sub-section (2) section provides offences compoundable. The punishment prescribed offence section 9(1)(bbbb) 7 the minimum punishment months. It brought to my notice approval has been granted under section 13 of the said Act of 1944 for arresting the Applicant herein.
It dispute accused Krishna Kumar Gupta who was earlier arrested has been ordered to be enlarged on bail.
The learned Counsel appearing Applicant submitted material placed record custodial interrogation Applicant required. He stated Applicant attending concerned office purpose interrogation. He submitted statement Krishna Kumar Gupta stated
Shri Ashok Sawant used to look after his business activities and all the records are available with him.
Shri Mehta appearing Respondents submitted though Applicant attended office interrogation disclosing relevant material. He submitted that considering the material 3 : ::: 3 : 3 : which is available with the Applicant, custodial interrogation required. He placed reliance affidavit-in-reply filed by one Shri C.S.Bhatade, Superintendent of Central Excise.
I considered submissions. A reference affidavit-in-reply Shri C.S.Bhatade, Superintendent Central Excise Application No.3319
2005. It stated affidavit Shri K.K.Gupta appointed Applicant herein collect cheques account rebate Shri K.K.Gupta stated statement 25th April 2005 Applicant herein employee. In affidavit stated Shri K.K.Gupta repeatedly stated Shri Ashok Sawant, absconding. It stated statement Ashok Sawant recorded possible Department to pin-point the role played by the Applicant.
A reference be made remand application submitted Respondent seeking remand K.K.Gupta. In remand Application stated K.K.Gupta person authorised operate accounts amount received rebate deposited. It stated 4 : ::: 4 : 4 : K.K.Gupta is deliberately withholding the information relating to whereabouts of Ashok Sawant.
A reference affidavit-in-reply application. In affidavit reiterating material record, nothing stated regards played by the Applicant and the necessity of his custodial interrogation.
In Respondents affidavits remand application, necessity custodial interrogation a established stage. The Applicant attending the concerned office for the purpose of investigation.
As Apex Court, anticipatory benefit Applicant a limited period i.e. filing charge and thereafter he will have to move the concerned Court for appropriate relief.
Operative part
Hence the Application is disposed of by pass the following order:
(i) In arrest Respondent No.1 Applicant connection 5 : ::: 5 : 5 : investigation pertaining F.No.V/PI/THI/12-5/2005 Central Excise Department, Thane-1 M/s.Apex Corporation, M/s.Muni Trade Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Globe Traders, M/s.Mansa Traders M/s.Venkatesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Applicant enlarged subject furnishing P.R.Bond Rs.75,000/- sureties amount. This benefit Applicant only till charge sheet is filed.
(ii) The Applicant cooperate investigation attend office concerned Officer purpose called so. The Applicant attempt directly or indirectly to tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. Judge. Judge. Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence the Application is disposed of by pass the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Excise Act, 1944; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 22 Jun 2005. The bench was ABHAY S OKA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.