Telangana High Court
V.K. Singh, vs The Enforcement Directorate, Govt. Of ... on 6 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1201 and 1455 of 2006
COMMON ORDER:
1. Criminal Revision Case No.1021 of 2006 is filed by A3
and Criminal Revision Case No.1455 of 2006 is filed by A1
against Common Judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos.200
and 223 of 2004 dated 23.03.2006, passed by the Special
Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.
2. Since both the petitioners were prosecuted in the very
same case before trial court and now questioning the
common judgment of Sessions Court, both the Criminal
Revision Cases are disposed off by way of this Common
Order.
3. It is the case of Enforcement Directorate that A1 is
the proprietrix of M/s.Sai International located in the
premises at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, which exported
readymade garments worth Rs.2,45,57,300/- in the year
1998-1999, but failed to realize the export proceeds. The
premises of A1 was searched on 20.02.2001 resulting in
seizure of 12 sheets relating to telephone bills, withdrawal
of foreign exchange etc. The said documents were seized
on the very same day. A1 gave information regarding her
customers and statement was recorded on the same day
i.e., 20.02.2001. According to her statement, she went to
Dubai shopping festival in the year 1997, 1998 and 1999
by taking imitation jewellery and sarees. For the said
purpose, A3, who is a Customs House Agent prepared
necessary documentation. A2 in the case met A1 in Dubai
(who is shown absconding) had offered that he would
arrange for material from Hyderabad to be exported in the
name of A1's firm and promised to pay remuneration. A2
also promised that all other formalities including
documentation etc., would be taken care of by him.
4. A2 procured material for export and G.R Forms were
signed in blank by A1. A1 also gave blank cheques to A2
and the account of Ms.Sai International of which A1 is the
proprietrix, was operated by A2. A1 went to Centurian
Bank, in which the account of M/s.Sai International was
operated and found that there were huge deposits in her
account, as stated in the authorization.
5. At the time of search that was conducted, according
to A1, it was A2 who had done the business and she was
not aware about any exports. According to the
prosecution, A3 was the person who had helped A2 in the
documentation of the exports and other transactions.
Accordingly, two exports were made by A2 and with the
help of A3, the said consignments were sent and availed
duty draw back amount from the Customs Authorities in
the name of M/s.Sai International. However, A1 to A3 did
not realize the said export proceedings. According to the
prosecuting agency, due to the said transactions A1 to A3
have contravened the provisions of Section 18(2) and 18(3)
of FERA Act, 1973 for failing to take steps to realize bill
value of export proceeds and A2 and A3 abetted A1 in
sending said consignments towards exports and the
export proceeds were not realized, which is in violation of
the said provisions of FERA.
6. Learned counsel for A1 would submit that violations,
if any, are punishable under the provisions of Customs
Act in view of Section 67 of FERA Act. Section 18(2) and
18(3) of the Act are not independent offences in
themselves. Further, Sub-Section (2) only refers to export
of goods under Section 18(1)(a) whereas sub-section (3) is
regarding the prosecution which is procedural in nature.
Even according to the prosecution case, it was A2 who
was the person who exported the goods and A1 cannot be
made liable for any act of omission or commission in the
said transactions. Mere non realization of the export value
ipso facto is not in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 18
of the FERA Act. Counsel further argued that both the
Courts below have not examined the scribe of Exs.P13 and
P17, which are statements of A1 during investigation.
Exs.P33 and P35 which are original G.R.Forms are highly
suspicious. Accordingly, no case is made out against A1.
7. On behalf of A3, learned Senior Counsel submits that
the only evidence placed by the prosecution is receipt of
cheques by A3 from M/s.Sai International and an amount
of Rs.30,00,000/- was received as a share of profits vide
said cheques. The mobile phone that was used by A2 was
in the name of A.3's company. A3 was a Customs House
Agent. Counsel further submits that as Customs House
Agent, his role is confined to process any document for
exports and he has no role to play in a business contract
of exporter and importer.
8. According to A1, the signatures on G.R.Forms were
forged by A2, as such, she cannot be held responsible for
the said exports. Export transactions are apparent and
they were done on behalf of A1's firm with the involvement
of A2. Further, A3 as the Customs House Agent had
helped in the documentation for exports and received
huge amounts for his services.
9. Learned Sessions Judge in appeal found that A2 was
using cell phone of A3 and he has made payments to A3
by way of cheques. The said cheques are Exs.P18 to P21
in the name of A3 issued by A1 on behalf of M/s.Sai
International. Since the cheques were encashed, the
complicity of A3 in the transactions cannot be doubted.
Such huge amounts cannot be towards services of a
custom house agent.
10. The fact remains that the acts of A1 to A3 failing to
realize the default value of the export proceeds, having
availed duty draw back amount from the Customs
Authorities in the name of M/s.Sai International is in
violation of provisions of FERA.
11. Both the Courts below have adjudicated the case on
the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The grounds
raised by the accused cannot form basis to set aside the
well reasoned judgment of Courts below and the findings
regarding the culpability of the petitioners.
12. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are
dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date :06.03.2024
kvs
