Dalvir Singh Gahlot vs Deputy Chief Controller Of ...
1991 Latest Caselaw 706 Del

JUDGMENT

R.L. Gnpta, J.

(1) The facts in this petition are shocking. Petitioner happens to be an Inspector in the Textile Committee under Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India. He is being prosecuted in two complaints by the CBI. First complaint is under Section 120B read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 while the second complaint is under Section 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. 1947.

(2) In both the complaints so far the petitioner is concerned the allegations are identical. These are that he issued two inspection certificates in 1980. The date of one is 30.1.80 while that of the other certificate is not clear from the complaint. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that he issued these false certificates in which he certified restricted dresses as non-restricted dresses. He is alleged to have so done in conspiracy with the Exporters i.e. M/s Cosmique Exports (P) Ltd. and M/s. General Overseas Marketing Pvt. Ltd. the complaints were filed against the petitioner and others in 1983. Although the complaints have been pending for such a long lime, the supply of the copies of documents to the petitioner is not yet complete. It is further pointed out that petitioner is about to retire in an year's time. His promotions are withheld only because of the pendency of these two complaints against him. In view of the fact that there was inordinate delay in the disposal of the complaints against the petitioner, for one reason or the other, I called upon learned Counsel for the respondent to point out any evidence by which the prosecution intended to substantiate the case against the petitioner. So far as I can visualize the evidence could be that some higher officer of the petitioner had examined the alleged restricted items personally and had certified that actually they were restricted items and, therefore, certificates were falsely issued to the effect that they were non-restricted items. Further evidence could be that the petitioner did so fraudulently or dishonestly in order to cheat some person. I called upon Mr.Lal to point out if the prosecution had collected any such evidence. Mr. Lal has not been able to point out any such evidence. His only submission is that the 10 Mr. M.L. Sachdeva, S.P. (CBI) had gone to Paris to interrogate certain witnesses who had told him that the certificates purporting to be issued by the petitioner were false. In that situation, J called upon Mr. Lal to read to me the statements of any such witnesses who might have been examined by the I0. Mr. Lal has told me that no such statement, were recorded and certain witnesses to that effect are sought to be examined from Paris. I am surprised that Mr. Sachdeva did not consider it desirable to record the statements of any of such witnesses who could say that certificates issued by the petitioner were false. It is not known what those witnesses will depose when they come to depose in these complaints. In the circumstances of the case, I must presume that the prosecution has not 633 collected any material evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner that he issued false certificates with a view to cheat anybody and that, too, in conspiracy with the manufacturers. So far as these two complaints are concerned, since no such evidence is coming forward, I must say that so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no evidence collected by the prosecution against him and simply because there are allegations made in the complaint that the certificates were false, will not be taken as a substitute for material evidence. I am, therefore of the view that there is no evidence against the petitioner on the basis of which he could be prosecuted by the CBI. Therefore, so far as petitioner is concerned, proceedings against him are hereby quashed in both the complaints. Petition stands disposed off.