(Madan B. Lokur and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Vinod Kumar Jain _________________________________ Appellant
v.
Union of India ___________________________________ Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1811 of 2012, decided on April 7, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their assistance.
2. The charges framed on 21.05.2010 by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI and Economic Offence), Indore (Madhya Pradesh) against the appellant read as follows:
“(01) That Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Indore, being so empowered under law, issued summons dated 14/12/09; 21/12/09 and 29/12/09, calling for your attendance in his office whereupon you were bound to be present before him but you intentionally did not remain present before him at the designated place.
(02) That while knowing that as Managing Director of Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Lakshya, Indore you look after Central Excise related work of the Company, you on or around 29/12/09 submitted a false evidence before Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Indore that you do not look after the above work, whereas excise duty related documents of the Company bears your signature as authorized signatory.”
3. In so far as the first charge is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions given by the appellant, states that he will appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer on 20.04.2015 at 11.00AM. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to proceed with the first charge.
4. In so far as the second charge is concerned, we have gone through the letter dated 29.12.2009 and find that it does not contain any statement which can prima facie be said to be false. All that it states is that the appellant was not looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company relating to duty drawback. These are looked after by Mr. P.K. Vyas, Executive Director of the Company and if any statement is required to be made in this regard, Mr. P.K. Vyas may be summoned and his statement will be equally binding on the Company. Having gone through this letter, we do not find any reason which can even remotely suggest that the second charge can be substantiated.
5. Under the circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and quash the charges framed against the appellant but direct the appellant to be present before the concerned Senior Intelligence Officer on 20.04.2015 at 11.00AM.
6. Needless to say, the appellant will co-operate in all the investigations in accordance with law that may be carried out by the respondent.
7. Liberty to apply in the event the appellant does not appear on 20.04.2015 before the concerned Senior Intelligence Officer.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1811/2012
Vinod Kumar Jain _________________________________ Appellant
v.
Union of India ___________________________________ Respondent
(With appln. (s) for stay and office report)
Date : 07/04/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ranjit Raut, Adv.
Mr. Siddaratha Dave, Adv.
Mr. R.S. Gulia, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Bina Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashok Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
8. The criminal appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
