Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD. ASAD ALI versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohd. Asad Ali v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 17920 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7512 (14 December 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Heard Sri I. M. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.S. Hajela, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings of case No. 3092 of 2005 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, pending in the court of Special Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad.

The contention of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is that in the F.I.R. the applicant or his firm were not named and the main allegation were against Rakesh Chaturvedi, the then Superintendent of Police, Central Excise Moradabad Range and Ali Shan Khan proprietor of M/s United Handicraft, Moradabad.

He has further contended that applicant is not even remotely concerned with the allegation made in the F. I. R.  and therefore he was not aware about the investigation also. When he came to know about the illegal acts of Ali Shan Khan, he separated from his firm and in the month of June, co accused Mohammad Shakeel  made murderous assault on him and he had to lodge a report in that matter.

Learned counsel for the accused applicant has contended that even the statement of the witnesses shows that except for two or three witnesses he has not been named in this matter. He did not prepare any document on behalf of Ali Shan, proprietor of M/s United Handicraft, Moradabad and he never deposited any documents relating to license or license fee or any other due in the bank or Excise office on behalf of that firm. He has further contended that without there being any legal evidence, the charge sheet has been submitted against him and the same is liable  to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the perusal of the charge sheet itself shows that after investigation involvement of the accused applicant was found in the matter. He has contended that during investigation it was disclosed that Ali Shan Khan and applicant Asad Ali with the object of getting waived the condition of deposit of bank guarantee a facility available to the firm/companies registered with Central Excise who have in the past or preceding years made an export of Rs. One corore and above dishonestly and fraudulently, on the strength of forged  documents  such as invoices, shipping bill, bill of loading etc. falsely claimed to have made export of Rs. 2.05 cores during the year 2001-02. It was also disclosed during investigation that Alishan Khan and Asad Ali on the basis of forged documents obtained an advance import licence and got the said licence registered with Jawahar Lal Nehru Custom House Navi. Mumbai and imported duty free brass-scrapes amounting to Rs. 30,88,418/- against the  advance license. They also dishonestly imported  123.875 MT of brass-scrapes worth Rs. 60,79563/- having custom duty of  Rs. 30,88,418 against the license as duty free import and subsequently mis-utilised the imported material by disposing it off in the open market and thereby cheated the government causing a wrongful gain to themselves and loss to custom department. On this basis learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that at this stage there is prima facie sufficient evidence to proceed against the applicant also and the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold.

In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings or the charge sheet and the application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Dated: 14.12.2005

RKS/17920/05


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.