Prakash Thawani Vs. State (Through Central Bureau of Investigation) - Court Judgment

V.B. Bansal, J.

(1) Prakash Thawani has filed this application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being released in anticipation of his arrest in case Fir No. Rc 12/90/SPL/DLI dated 26th October, 1990 under Sec. 120-B read with Secs. 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and substantive offence under Sec. 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 3rd August, 1990, 11 cartons and one wooden box containing air conditioner and one photo-copier were imported in India vide air-way bill No. 098-6110, 6846 by Air India Flight No. 738. This consignment was allegedly imported into India in the name of Embassy of Peru as official import claiming duty exemption. The Embassy of Peru have been importing their goods through M/s A. Andrews and Company (Mail Order) Ltd. 38-44, D'Aguilar Street, Hong Kong and M/s Sartaj Electronics, P. 01 Box 12655, Dubai(UAE) and the the petitioner Prakash Thawani has been the representative of the said companies inindia.

(2) On 9th August, 1990 the petitioner and Jasminder Singh came to the Import Ii Building, Air Cargo Unit, Igi Airport, New Delhi for attempting the clearance of the aforesaid consignment. There was already a secret intelligence information with the Assistant Collector Customs (Import) that some Custom House Agent who imports the goods for Embassy of Peru is misusing the diplomatic channel for the import of the goods. On the basis of this information both the petitioner and Jasminder Singh were apprehended. It was found that on the basis of Certificate PE-OFF/7/90 exemption was sought in respect of the said 12 packages containing 11 units of room air-conditioner and one photo-copier machine. This exemption certificate had the attestation No. 7651 dated 7th August, 1990 from the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. On suspicion the document was seized and it was found that it was a forged document. Authority letter was also produced claiming the delivery of these packages which too was found to be forged one.

(3) It is in these circumstances that it was found that the petitioner who has been importing goods for the Embassy has been misusing his position and was indulging in import of goods without payment of the necessary duty. On investigation it was found that the Embassy of Peru had not placed any such order and bad disowned the said consignments. It has also been found that the necessary documentations like master air way bill etc. were received in the Former Travel & Cargo (1) Ltd. wherefrom the same were collected by the petitioner.

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the packages in question were imported into India at the instance of the Embassy of Peru and that the petitioner has not committed any forgery. He has also submitted that the documents in question are genuine and that the petitioner has already joined investigation. He has further submitted that the adjudication proceedings in respect of the import of these packages have already been initiated and that Jasminder Singh co-accused has already been released on bail after arrest. He has, thus, prayed for the release of the petitioner in anticipation of his arrest and has submitted that the petitioner would cooperate in the investigation and would join the same as and when required. He has also submitted that no useful purpose would be served by the arrest of the petitioner.

(5) This application has strongly been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent who has submitted that the petitioner while working as representative of the companies for the Embassy of Peru to import goods for official use has been misusing his position and importing goods under forged documents. He has also submitted that the investigation has revealed that the exemption certificate is forged one which does not bear the signature of the Ambassador and similarly the authorisation letter also is forged one being not signed by the Ambassador. He has submitted that the matter has to be thoroughly investigated and keeping in view the seriousness of the matter involving the name of a foreign Embassy it is not a fit case for bail.

(6) I have given my thoughtful consideration to all these submissions and have also gone through the relevant statements and the original documents made available by learned counsel for the respondents. It is clear that the petitioner made attempts to get the delivery of the packages on the basis of forged documents and he has been getting the consignments of the Embassy of Peru cleared. Merely because co-accused has been allowed bail after police remand for 10 days in my view cannot be a ground for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(7) Considering all the facts and circumstances, I am clearly of the view that no case is made out for the release of the petitioner in anticipation of bids arrest. The application, thereforee, stands dismissed.