IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11280 of 2009 BABUA TUDDU . Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.C.B.I. . ----------- 7. 19.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I. The petitioner is stated to be a Superintendent in the Central Excise Department. He has been made accused in a Police case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B of the Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered as RC.3(A) 98 Pat. Charge sheet has been submitted on 23.7.2004 under the aforesaid Sections. The allegations pertain to the issue of alleged purchase by certain persons of raw materials from S.S.I. Units entitling them to certain Excise benefits and then manufacturing products from these items for export entitling them to certain additional Excise benefits. The allegations in the charge sheet state that the so called S.S.I. Units showing purchase from which excise duty benefits had been claimed were not in existence. The so called produced products were never exported but Excise benefits obtained. 2 Strong reliance has been placed on a sanction accorded for refund in claim No. 2 of 1992, to urge that refund was earlier sanctioned from Paragraph- V of the same. Paragraph –VI of the same order itself arrived at the conclusion after discussion that the entire modus operandi was questionable and the refund was erroneous, liable for recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court that if a refund claim had been allowed earlier, the prosecution is unsustainable. When the entire defence is erroneous and has been questioned by the authorities themselves, there is no occasion for interference under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Any defence of the petitioner is to be examined more particularly in the trial and not in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)