IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.175 OF 1999. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.175 OF 1999. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.175 OF 1999. Union of India ..Applicant versus Laxmichand Thakkarshi Gala & Others ..Respondents Mr.H.V.Mehta for the applicant. None for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 though served. Mr. Saste for the State of Maharashtra CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 2ND JUNE, 2008 DATED : 2ND JUNE, 2008 DATED : 2ND JUNE, 2008 JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 were called upon to face case No.24/W/1987 in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai and were concerned under Section 120(b) r/w. Section 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the Maharashtra Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Section 40 r/w. Section 34, 471 r/w. Section 468 of IPC and Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. 2. It has been the case of the complainant, namely Deputy Chief Controller, Exports and Imports, Ahmedabad, that Respondent No.1 M/s. Gala Engineering Pvt. Ltd. obtained the license under -2- the Imports and Exports (Control) Act of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the said Act and they were permitted to import the goods and use them for their industrial activity. According to the complainant/applicant the respondent No.1 and the respondent Nos.2 to 7 being the persons concerned with respondent No.1 imported the goods, however sold them to outsiders and violated the terms of the license. It was also the case of the applicant that the respondent No.1 did not possess necessary machinery to manufacture the goods by using the goods imported and obtained the license by practising the fraud on the applicant. 3. At the stage of evidence before the Charge the complainant examined as many as 16 witnesses and the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, after considering the said evidence on record came to the conclusion that no primafacie case is made out against the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for framing charge and that is how the order of discharge came to be passed on 18.12.1997. Being aggrieved by this order dated 18.12.1997, the applicants have moved this court in its revisional jurisdiction. -3- 4. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Mehta and with his assistance I have gone through the entire record. The learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Judge has discussed each and every witness whose evidence came to be recorded and has offered his comments. The learned Judge has in paragraph 16 of the said judgment indicated as to what are the follies in so far as the evidence on record and has specifically observed that there is no material placed before the Court to show that the goods imported were sold in open market in violation of the terms and conditions of the license. He has also observed that the allegations of criminal conspiracy are not made out. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has specifically read the evidence of P.W.6 Mr. Pai who contended that the terms of the license were violated. It must be mentioned that the letter dated 16.6.1981 was relied upon by the complainant through this witness-P.W.6. However, that letter was not exhibited and that is how that portion of -4- the evidence cannot be accepted in favour of the applicants. 6. After having gone through the entire record, I am inclined to observe that the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly negatived the stand of the applicant by which they had claimed that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further against the respondent nos.1 to 4. 7. In my view the evidence on record does not indicate that the terms of the license were violated. It is pertinent to note that before the learned Trial Judge, the so called false Consumption Certificate was also not produced and that is also an important lacuna in the entire matter. In the substance the impugned order delivered by the learned trial judge was proper and is not required to be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction of this court, as no material illegality is shown. Hence the revisions is required to be dismissed. Hence the order. ORDER -5- . Rule is discharged. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)