PHIROZE DINSHAW LAM ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 28-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
\ 
)~ 
PHIROZE DINSHA W LAM ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 
FEBRUARY 28, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 192 and 19J-Fabrication of false evidence 
and its punishment-No request made for prosecution of the persons for 
fabricating false evidence at the appropriate stag&-Held, it cannot be allowed C 
subsequently after a gap of many months-An order levying penal interest 
would meet the ends of justice instead of a direction for prosecutiolt-Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 340-Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944: 
Section 4. 
Godrej manufactured refrigerators, besides other goods. These D 
refrigerators, when delivered to dealers at distant places, were packed in 
Corrugated Fibre Containers (CFCs) to protect them from damage in the 
course of transport and for convenient handling. In the proceedings relat-
ing to ;aluation under Section 4 or the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 
a question arose as to whether the value of CFCs was to be included in the 
value of refrigerators. Godrej pleaded for exclusion of the value of CFCs 
which was rejected by the Assistant Collector but later on accepted by the 
Collector. The same question again arose in the subsequent years when the 
Revenue served the demand notice including the value of CFCs in the value 
of refrigerators. Godrej approached the High Court. 
The Writ Petition came up for hearing before a Single Judge of the 
High Court. Meanwhile, the Apex Court had delivered the Judgement in 
E 
F 
· Union of India and Ors v. Bombay Tyre International, [1984] (1) SCR 347, 
laying down the principles governing the said issue. Before the Single 
Judge, Godrej wanted to rely upon certain letters said to have been 
addressed to it by dealers to support its claim for exclusion of the value G 
of CFCs. Revenue opposed the admission of the letters. The Judge declined 
to admit or rely upon the letters. The writ Petition was allowed on other 
grounds. The Revenue filed a Letters Patent Appeal which was disposed 
by the Division Bench of the High Court which also did not rely upon those 
letters. 
H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
A Special Leave Petition was prererred by the Revenue In this Court. 
Meanwhile, the premises or Godrej all over the country were searched and 
several documents were seized. A letter written by the General Manager 
[Marketing] or Godrej was also seized. In the letter request was made to 
the Branch Managers to obtain from certain trusted dealers ante-dated 
B letters stating facts which supported Godrej's case for exclusion of the 
value of CFCs. These were the letters prepared with an eye upon the 
principles enunciated in Bombay Tyre International case which were sought 
to be filed before the Single Judge. At that time, Revenue was not aware 
that the letters were fabricated. It came to know about it only later on. 
c 
Revenue contended that Godrej was guilty of fabricating evidence 
and or trying to mislead the Court. This Court allowed the Special Leave 
Petition and remitted the matter to the High Court with the order that the 
High Court will consider the question of admissibility, relevancy and the 
value or the letters and then come to the questio11 of assessable value of 
D the refrigerators. 
The matter was posted for bearing before Single Judge. Godrej chose 
to abandon its case and wanted a settlement. But no settlement could be 
reached. Godrej filed an application to withdraw the Writ Petition but 
E Revenue opposed it. The Writ Petition was disposed of under what Is called 
'Minutes or the Order". The Order provides for payment of duties due 
from Godrej subject to certain observa!ions. The Order is not an agreed 
order. It is an Order or the Court. It does not contain any reference to 
Revenue's allegation offabrlcation ofevidence and prosecution of Godrej, 
F its officers and dealers. 
After fifteen months, the Revenue took out notice of motion before a 
Division Bench of the High Court requesting that appropriate criminal 
proceedings be initiated against Godrej, its officers and dealers for 
fabrication of evidence and attempt to defraud the Court on that basis. 
G The Court passed orders directing the Registrar of the Court to file a 
compaint before an appropriate criminal Court against Godrej and others 
under Section 192 !PC. This Order was made under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 
This Order was challenged in this Court. 
H 
Disposing of the appeals,

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