0510aba325.11.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) 325 OF 2011 (Ashok Hansaraj Munjal Vs. The State of Maharashtra & another) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R. P. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P. D. Kothari, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : U. V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 05TH OCT., 2011 Heard. 2. The applicant, who apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 74/2009 registered at Dhantoli police station, Nagpur and presently investigated by the Crime Branch, Nagpur for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed this application for pre-arrest bail. 3. A complaint has been lodged by Shri Sanjay Gupta with police station, Dhantoli on 7/4/2009 against the applicant and one B.K. Sethi alleging that the alleged accused persons namely, the applicant and the said Sethi had agreed to supply to him manganese ore of the quality Mn 40.12%, but supplied the quantity of 70210 Kgs. of manganese ore which was of inferior quality and thereby cheated the complainant. 4. There are four high seas agreements for the sale of manganese ore between the firm of the applicant by name Puneet Metal Industries and the firm of the complainant by name Shree Marketing. 0510aba325.11.odt 2/4 Four separate commercial invoices were raised and the gradation of the manganese ore was done by Indonesian authority and certificates of purity/quality of 40% above was issued by the said Indonesian authority. The copies of the certificates are produced on record. The said manganese ore consignments were shipped from Surabaya Port, Indonesia to Haldia Port, Kolkata. This happened in March, 2008. On 11/4/2008, the firm of the complainant took delivery of the said manganese ore from Haldia Port and paid the customs duty on the quality specification mentioned in the bill of entry for home consumption. Copies of the said bills of entry for home consumption are produced by the applicant and the stamp of the Customs Department appears on them showing the quality of the manganese ore as 40.12% and 42.09% . 5. Learned Advocate Shri Joshi has alleged that the said bills of entry are otherwise known as Customs Clearance Certificates. 6. Section 17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that after an importer has entered any imported goods under Section 46 or an exporter has entered any export goods under Section 50 the imported goods or the export goods, as the case may be or such part thereof as may be necessary may, without undue delay, be examined and tested by the proper officer. 7. It can thus be presumed that before issuing the Customs Clearance Certificates, the manganese ore was duly examined and tested by the proper Customs Officers. The complainant had paid Rs.12,40,454/- and Rs.5,32,212/- to the applicant by cheques and also 0510aba325.11.odt 3/4 an amount of Rs.3,12,133/- to the applicant by another cheque. According to the applicant, the total value of the consignment was Rs.29,80,956/- and according to the respondent, the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.29,17,011/-, by cheques. It is seen from the record that between 22/4/2008 to 7/4/2009, the complainant sold the said manganese ore to (i) M.B. Ispat Corporation Limited, Durgapur (W.B.) and (ii) M/s Sachin Enterprises. There is on record a copy of the notice issued by the applicant through his Advocate to the complainant which is dated 24/5/2008 by which the applicant has asked for payment of outstanding amount of Rs.8.96,187/-. However, on 7/4/2009, complainant Sanjay Gupta has lodged the complaint which has given rise to the registration of Crime No.74/2009. 8. According to the respondent, the Investigating Officer has collected the sample of the manganese ore from M.B. Ispat Corporation Ltd., which was supplied by the complainant and this sample was sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai and the report of the Chemical Analysis reveals that the percentage varies from 3.42% to 36.44%. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the said manganese ore was delivered to the complainant on 11/4/2008 and it is not known as to how now after about a year, it can be believed that the said manganese ore sold to M. B. Ispat Corporation Ltd. and M/s Sachin Enterprises is the same and as to how it can be believed that there was no tampering with the manganese ore supplied by the applicant. In my view, the said delay of about one year in filing the complaint gives 0510aba325.11.odt 4/4 ground to the applicant for seeking anticipatory bail. Even otherwise, the matter also involves a civil dispute. The applicant deserves for anticipatory bail, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No.74/2009 registered with Dhantoli police station, Nagpur presently investigated by Crime Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur, for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he shall be released on bail upon execution of personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one solvent surety in the like amount under the following conditions, namely :- (i) The applicant shall attend Crime Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer, to do so and shall cooperate with the investigation; (ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of this Court. JUDGE wwl