STATE TR. INSP. OF POLICE versus A. ARUN KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 17-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
(2014] 11 S.C.R. 319 
STATE TR. INSP. OF POLICE 
A 
v. 
A. ARUN KUMAR & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2602 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 17, 2014 
B 
[DIPAK MISRA AND UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.239 - When 
accused shall be discharged - Allegations against accused 
no. 1 to 3 that they entered into criminal conspiracy with c 
accused no. 4 and 5, in pursuance thereof filed false and 
fabricated document to claim duty draw back - Registration 
of case against respondents-accused under the provisions of 
Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Customs 
Act - Application by respondents u/s. 239 seeking discharge D 
- Dismissal of, by the Special Court-holding that a case for 
framing charges against respondents was made out -
Revision by respondents - Allowed by the High Court since 
no case was made out to frame any charges against 
respondents -
On appeal held: The material on record E 
disclosed grave suspicion against the respondents - Special 
Court was right in framing charges against the respondents -
Thus, order passed by the Special Court restored and that of 
the High Court set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 468, 471 
a.nd 201 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss.13(1)(c), 
F 
13(1)(d), 15 - Customs Act, 1962 - ss.132, 136. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The documents placed on record-copies of 
shipping bills and corresponding Exchange Control G 
dcl.:laration forms which are part of charge-sheet 
disClosed grave suspicion against the respqndents and 
the Special Court was right in framing charges' against the 
319 
H 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. • 
A 
respondents. The High Court was not justified in stating 
that Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
could not be invoked. Since the duty draw back was not 
actually availed, the prosecution rightly alleged that there 
was an attempt to commit offence under the relevant 
B 
clauses of Section 13(1) of the POC Act. It is not the 
requirement of law that in order to charge an accused 
under Section 15 of the POC Act he must also be charged 
either under Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) of the POC Act. 
Thus, the judgment and order passed by the High Court 
c 
is set aside and that of the Special Court is restored. 
[Para 6, 9, 1 O] [326-D; 329-E-H; 330-A] 
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 
211; Sajjan Kumar v. CBI 2010 (11) SCR 669: (2010) 9 SCC 
368; Union of India v. Praful/a Kumar Sama/ (1909) 3 SCC 
D 
4; Di/a war Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra 2002 (1) 
SCR 75: (2002) 2 SCC 135 - referred to. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
(2005) 6 sec 211 
Referred to 
Para 6 
2010 (11) SCR 669 
Referred to 
Para 8 
(1909) 3 sec 4 
Referred to 
Para 8 
2002 (1) SCR 75 
Referred to 
Para 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 2602 of 2014. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.08.2011 of the High 
Court of Judicature of Madras in Crl.RC. No. 106 of 2009. 
Vibha Dutt Makhija, T.A. Khan, Charul {3arin, Arivind 
Kumar Sharma, B.V. Bairam Das for the Appellant. 
B.A. Khan, Ratnakar Dash, Madhurima Mridul, Sunil 
' 
• 
STATE TR. INSP. OF POLICE v. A. ARUN KUMAR 
321 
Fernandes, Astha Sharma, Mithu Jain, B. Karunakar, B. 
A 
Shajjmon, Vikash Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted. This appeal 
arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.08.2011 passed 
8 
by the High Court of Madras in Crl. R.C. No.106 of 2009 
whereby it set aside the order of the Special Court dated 
19.12.2008 dismissing the application for discharge preferred 
by the Respondents herein. 
c 
2. On 08.02.2007 RC-1/E/2007-CBl/EOW/CHENNAI was 
registered under sections 1208 read with section 420, 467, 
468, 471 IPC and 477-A IPC and section 13 (2) read with 
section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
(POC Act for short) and section 32 of the Customs Act, 1962 D 
on the allegations that accused nos. 1-3 named therein had 
entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused no.4 who was 
Appraiser of Customs, Inland Container Depot (ICD), lrugur, 
Coimbatore and with accused no.5, Inspector of cu~toms, 
Inland Container Depot, lrugur, Coimbatore during 2004-2005 
E 
and in pursuance of said conspiracy had filed false and 
fabricated documents to claim duty draw back to the tune of 
Rs.2.14 crores (approximately) from ICD, lrugur. It was alleged 
that said accused nos.1-3 had filed certain Shipping Bills and 
that t

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