IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1284 of 2009 & 1285 of 2009 DATE:18.06.2010 Crl.R.C.No.1284 of 2009 Between: Dinesh Kumar Jain …… Petitioner And: The State, Inspector of Police, C.B.I., E.O.W, Chennai, rep. By its Special Public Prosecutor. …..Respondent Crl.R.C.No.1285 of 2009 Between: Surender Kumar Aggarwal …… Petitioner/A-6 And: The State, Inspector of Police, C.B.I., E.O.W, Chennai, rep. By its Special Public Prosecutor. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1284 of 2009 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1285 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions are filed by A-5 and A-6 in C.C. No.2 of 2007 on the file of Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Visakhapatnam against two orders dated 23.04.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1397, 1396 of 2007 respectively, by which the lower Court dismissed those two petitions filed by A- 5 and A-6 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. refusing to discharge them. It is a case of fabrication of 7 D.E.P.B (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) licences and the corresponding transfer release advices by forging signatures of customs/D.G.F.T officials affixing bogus rubber stamps and selling the same to M/s.Kedia Overseas Limited, Hyderabad by deceiving and accepting payments as consideration for the same. According to the prosecution, the entire offence is the result of conspiracy among A-1 to A-16. It is alleged that A-2 managed 7 D.E.P.B licences with its enclosures like T.R.As (Transfer Release Advices) through the officials who are A-8 and A-9. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that as per allegations in the charge sheet, no specific participation in the offences is alleged in so far as A- 5 and A-6 are concerned. According to the prosecution, because of this fraud case, Government of India incurred loss of Rs.1.9 crores. 3) According to the prosecution, A-5 is proprietor of M/s.Laxmi Enterprises, Delhi and that A-6 is proprietor of M/s.Lord Empire International, Delhi and that those two bogus establishments were floated by A-5 and A-6 respectively in pursuance of the conspiracy to adjust fraudulent amounts involved in this case and that A-5 and A-6 obtained Import Export Code for their fictitious firms fraudulently with the help of A-2 even though no genuine export or import business was done by them and that bank accounts are opened and maintained by them and they did not receive any foreign remittances through export. A-5 is nephew of A-2, and A-6 is stated to be a close friend of A-2. It is further alleged that A-5 and A-6 opened bank accounts in their fictitious establishments’ names at Lord Krishna Bank and Citizen Co- operative Bank, Noida at the instance of A-2 and that it was A-2 who introduced A-5 and A-6 and their fictitious concerns for opening those bank accounts and that fraud money was transferred from accounts of these two and other fictitious concerns involved in this case. According to the prosecution, Rs.18,00,000/- was transferred to the account of A-5 and Rs.11,50,000/- was transferred to the account of A-6 towards sale proceeds of forged D.E.P.B licences issued in the names of M/s.Paramhans Trading Company and M/s.Shree Sakshi Impex respectively and those amounts were subsequently adjusted for the purpose of retiring of import documents of A-2. 4) Having regard to the above allegations in the charge sheet and documents like bank accounts etc., appended to the charge sheet, it cannot be said that prima facie A-5 and A-6 had no role in the conspiracy. After considering the entire material on record and legal position on the subject, the lower Court rightly refused to discharge A-5 and A-6. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to come to a different conclusion in these revision petitions. 5) In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 18, 2010 KSH