CHENNAI: Indian Customs ordered to release five customs officials of fabricating records to claim Rs 2.5 crore duty drawbacks, they must face trial in front of the others court for CBI cases in Chennai.
The apex court said the high court was not correct in ruling that the officials could not be charged under Section 15 (punishment for attempt by a public servant to obtain a valuable thing for pecuniary benefit) of Prevention of Corruption Act, adding that the CBI court should conduct the trial on merit.
According to the CBI, Manish Kumar Jain, R V Shanmugam, N Rajan, Arun Kumar and Santhosh Kumar of Coimbatore had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the government. Forging the shipping documents, they increased the value of exports from 3.22 crore to 22.72 crore and attempted to claim an inflated duty drawback of 2.5 crore, instead of the actual 35,000. Before the duty drawback was allowed, the directorate general of central excise intelligence stopped the process. The accused then tried to remove the forged documents and replace them with the actual export documents.
The economic offences wing of CBI in Chennai charge sheeted them for cheating, forgery and destroying evidence under relevant sections of the IPC, besides provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and Customs Act. The accused then moved the Madras high court.
The high court discharged them saying Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act could be invoked only if the accused had been charged with committing the offence. Noting that there was no evidence to implicate them, the high court had said, “…The prosecution has not produced a single scrap of material either through statement or any document to make out a prima facie case for framing of charges.” It then set aside the order of the special court to proceed against the accused.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, however, said the high court was not justified in stating that Section 15 could not be invoked. As the accused had not availed themselves of duty drawback, the prosecution was right in invoking the provision, it said.
Setting aside the high court’s order, the bench said, “The material on record discloses grave suspicion… and the special court was correct in framing charges.” It said the accused had to face trial, and asked the special court to deal with the case on merits.
