CBI GUJARAT versus DILIP MULANI & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 20-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1005
CBI, GUJARAT
v.
DILIP MULANI & ANR.
 (Criminal Appeal No.1252 of 2019)
AUGUST 20, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:  Discharge application –
Respondent No.1 was named as an accused for committing offence
punishable under s.120-B IPC and ss.7, 12, 13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Discharge application filed
by respondent No.1  – Trial court  rejected the discharge application
– Respondent No.1 filed revision application before the High Court
– High Court allowed the revision application –  On appeal, held:
Trial Court had adverted to relevant evidence which in its opinion
pointed towards the involvement or  the complicity of respondent
No.1 in the commission of the alleged crime – High Court without
analyzing any factual aspects of the matter proceeded to record
that it is a case of no evidence against respondent No.1 and allowed
the discharge application – The approach of the High Court is
unacceptable – Impugned judgment is set aside and the parties are
relegated to the High Court for reconsideration of the revision
application on its own merits.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1252 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2017 of the High Court
of   Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 846 of
2016
K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Mukul Singh, Ms. Snidha Mehra, Debasis
Rout, Hemant Arya, Chakitan V.S. Papta, Arvind Kumar Sharma,  Advs.
for the Appellant.
S. V. Raju, Sr. Adv., Mohan Jayakar, Abhay Dhadiwal, Devashish
Jagirdar, Mehul  M. Gupta, R. P. Gupta, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka (for
Aniruddha P. Mayee),  Advs. for the Respondents.
[2019] 12  S.C.R. 1005
               1005
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2.  Heard counsel for the parties.
3.  This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated
29.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal
Revision Application (Against order passed by Subordinate Court) No.846
of 2016, whereby the High Court was pleased to set aside the decision
dated 08.07.2016 of the Trial Court rejecting the discharge application
filed by respondent No.1 (Accused No.5), Dilip Mulani.
4. Respondent No.1 has been named as an accused for having
committed offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
5.  The Trial Court while rejecting the discharge application filed
by respondent No.1 adverted to relevant facts, as can be discerned from
paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment dated 08.07.2016. The same
read as thus:-
xxx
xxx
xxx
“13. Here in the present case, after registering the FIR, though
investigation has been carried out by the Investigating Officer
wherein it reveals that Shri Anand Singh Mall was posted as
Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Shri Anand Singh Mall was
looking after all the works related to export, import and refund.
As Assistant Commissioner on Air Cargo Complex, it was his
duty to sanction the SAD refund claim cheques in favour of the
importers. Now, so far at the involvement of the present applicant
accused is concerned, Rs.3.5 lacs and Rs.1.5 lacs of bribe money
has been paid to Shri Anand Singh Mall. In the said transaction as
per the investigation paper, the role of the present application
accused is established. As per the investigation, One Shri
R.C.Pagaria, Incharge of M/s Khimji Punja Freight Forwarders
Private Limited, Delhi, had received Rs.5 lacs on 28/08/2010
through M/s. Purnima Angadia from the company’s Head Office
at Mumbai, and as per the direction of Shri Mehul Zaveri, Shri
R.C.Pagraria, had paid Rs.3.5 lacs to Shri Kishan Rajwar whose
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
telephone number was given by Shri Anand Singh Mall during
conversation. In this regard, the diary in which Shri R.C. Pagaria
had written about the receipt of Rs.5 lacs from his Mumbai Office
and delivery of Rs.3.5 lacs to Shri Kishan Rajwar, have also been
recovered during the investigation. Not only that but during the
search at the office of accused Shri Mehul Zaveri at Ahmedabad,
one expenditure note book was also seized in which entry dated
29/07/2010 addressed to Shri Dilipbhai Mulani shows “A.Mall ad
hoc as per the list attached show to D.M.Rs.3,50,000.-” From the
above evidence, it transpires that on 29/07/2010, Shri Mehul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.