Bombay High Court
Ghulam Farooq Noorani vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 18 January, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:950-DB
Judgment wp484.23
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 484/2023.
Ghulam Farooq Noorani,
Aged 41 years, Occupation - Business,
resident of 602, Arihant Sparsh,
Plot No.13 and 14, Sector 26,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
The Central Bureau of Investigation,
through Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT.
---------------------------------
Mr. S. Kantawala, Advocate with Mr.A.M. Sudame, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Ms M. Chandurkar, Advocate for the Respondent.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 18, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of
Rgd.
Judgment wp484.23
the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner's prayed to quash the first
information report bearing Crime No. RC0282021A0001/2021
registered with the CBI/ACB, Nagpur for the offence punishable
under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 13[2] read with Section 13[1][d] of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has no
concern with the allegations leveled in the first information report,
which has been lodged at the instance of the directions issued by this
Court in Criminal Public Interest Litigation No.5/2016. The first
information report is admittedly against the officers of the Central
Excise and Customs, as well as against unknown persons.
3. Precisely it is alleged that this Court in Criminal Public
Interest Litigation took cognizance regarding smuggling of
substandard, unsafe and unfit betel nuts/areca nuts by fake persons
with fake and forged documents in connivance with public servants
Rgd.
Judgment wp484.23
causing huge revenue loss. Certain betel nuts weighing 1065 MTs
have been seized connecting the petitioner. In said connection, the
Director of Revenue Intelligence has issued a show cause notice
dated 28.07.2018 to the petitioner and some others in terms of
Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 alleging evasion of custom
duty. The petitioner has challenged the said notice, which
culminated into adjudication by the Joint Commissioner of Customs,
who ordered confiscation of goods as well as, a penalty of Rs.1 Crore
has been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 112[a] of the
Customs Act.
4. The petitioner has carried said adverse order before the
Tribunal i.e. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
[Mumbai]. Ultimately by an order dated 27.06.2023, the Appellate
Tribunal on merits has set aside the order of adjudication which was
in term of confiscation and imposition of penalty.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said order of
the Appellate Tribunal has attained finality, and thus, criminal
prosecution cannot run hand in hand on the same facts and
Rgd.
Judgment wp484.23
circumstances. This is the main ground canvassed by the petitioner.
Precisely, it is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that the first information report does not
reflects loss of revenue, but, there are allegations of forgery and
fraud. It is canvassed by C.B.I., that certificate of origin, which has
been produced by the petitioner is fake and investigation to that
effect is still in progress. However, it is not disputed that the
petitioner has not been yet named as an accused in the said crime.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant has
invited our attention to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in
case of Hukum Chand Garg and another .vrs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh and others - Special Leave to Appeal [Cri] 762/2020
decided on 07.02.2022, wherein in similar circumstances, the
investigation was allowed to continue while granting certain
protection to the petitioner therein. The learned Counsel for the
non-applicant further states that the investigation revolves around
several stake holders involving Sri Lankan Government, and it would
take some time.
Rgd.
Judgment wp484.23
7. The petitioner has been served with a notice under
Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the petitioner
has positively responded. It is the contention of the CBI that in
pursuance of the directions in Criminal Public Interest Litigation, the
first information report has been registered and investigation is in
progress. The issue involved is having vast magnitude having effect
on public health, and therefore, at this initial stage the first
information cannot be quashed.
8. It is not in dispute that the first information report is
against unknown persons, and since last three years the investigation
is going on. The petitioner has appeared in pursuance of the notice
from the office of CBI. Since yet the petitioner has not been arrayed
as an accused, there is no question of quashing of the first
information report. However, at present there is no material, rather
the investigation is still going on therefore, we refrain ourselves in
examining the case of the petitioner on merits.
9. In view of above, we proceed to pass the following order.
Rgd.
Judgment wp484.23
ORDER
(i) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The Investigating Officer shall continue with the
investigation in relation to Crime No.
RC0282021A0001/2021 registered with the CBI/ACB,
Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B,
420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 13[2] read with Section 13[1][d] of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. He shall give 72 hours
prior notice to the petitioner before proceeding against
him, so as to enable the petitioner to take appropriate
steps. It is made clear that during said period of 72
hours, no coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioner.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/01/2024 10:39:33
