LexM. NATARAJAN versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPE, CBI, ACB CHENNAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, [2008) 7 S.C.R. 1000 >' M. NATARAJAN '-t V. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPE, CBI, ACB CHENNAI (Criminal Appeal No. 834 of 2008 etc.) B MAY 7, 2008 [P.P. NAOLEKAR AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 102 B rlw s. 420, 467 and 471 - c Evasion of custom duty by one of the accused - By producing fabricated documents - Appellant-accused alleged to have helped in preparation of some fabricated documents - Prosecution under the provisions of /PC - Petitions for discharge and quashing of criminal proceedings filed by D appellant-accused- Dismissal of by courts below- On appeal, r plea that the evader of the duty having entered final settlement in terms of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, earned complete immunity from the transaction and no one could be prosecuted - Held: Criminal proceedings not liable to be E quashed against the appellant-accused - Immunity under the Scheme refers to only direct and indirect tax enactments and not to the offences under /PC - Merely because the accused had been tried uls 132 of Customs Act, it does not preclude trial for offences under /PC - Finance Act (No.2), 1998 - Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 - Customs Act, 1962 - s. . ' F 132. A charge-sheet was filed against the appellant- accused and five other accused, u/s. 120 B r/w s. 420, 467, 471 IPC. Prosecution case was that accused No. 3 sent a G car from England to India. Accused No. 4, in order to take advantage of Transfer of Residence Scheme used fabricated documents for clearance of the car. Appellant- accused had helped in preparation of the fabricated doc.uments. Appellant-accused filed a discharge H 1000 1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. " A Commissioner of Income Tax 2004 (2) SCC 731; Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Calcutta v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2006 (7) SCC 642; Alpesh Navinchdnara Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2007 (2) SCC 777- referred to. B 2. It is not correct to say that the only offence which .I. could have been alleged against any of the accused was .,. under Section 132 of the Customs Act, 1962, i.e., of making a false declaration, since the offence complained of, related to the false declaration and false documents and c the appellant could be prosecuted only under Section 132 of the Customs Act and not under the offences covered t- under IPC. Merely because there may be some overlapping in the two offences, it does not mean that the appellant cannot be tried under the offences covered D under IPC. The Court would proceed to decide the question on the basis of the evidence led before it. Merely ' 1 because the appellant could be tried under Section 132 of the Customs Act, it does not mean that he could not be tried for the offence committed under the IPC. There is no E such provision. [Para 27] (1023-H; 1024-A,B,E,-F] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 834 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.10.2005 of F the High Court of Judicture at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No. 538 of 2005. • • WITH Criminal Appeal No. 835 of 2008. G K. Subramaniam, R. Jayaseelan, E.C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarawal, Rishi Agrawala, Gaurav Goel, Amit Kumar Sharma and Ashutosh Garg for the Appellant. 'l Vikas Singh, ASG, Vikas Sharma. Ranjana Narayan, B.K. H Prasad and V. K. Verma for the respondent. M. NATARAJAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 1003 SPE, CBI, ACB CHENNAI [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] The J~dgment of the Court was delivered by A V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court j whereby the High Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision Case No.538 of2005 and Criminal O.P. No.21636 of2005 filed B by the appellant herein. 3. Following facts will highlight the controversy involved. 4. One Dr.S. Balakrishnan, purchased the Toyota Lexus c Car which was sent by Ship to Madras Port in July, 1994. His son Yogesh Balakrishnan presented certain documents for getting clearance of the said car from the Customs Department. One such document was a letter dated 8.9.1994 authored by the appellant herein Shri M. Natarajan who is the publisher of a magazine called "Tamilarasi" which publication had commenced D in the year 1992. He is also the author of bi-monthly magazine "Pudiya Paarvai" which surfaced in the year 1993. One Baskaran was said to be assisting the appellant b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.