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 APPLICATION NO. 3736 OF 1998 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3736 OF 1998 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3736 OF 1998 Union of India ...Applicant (Orig.Complainant) vs. Shri Pravinchand Dungarshi Lalan, Managing Director of M/s.Pragnesh Engineering Company (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.H.V. Mehta for the Applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. None for Respondent No.1. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri Mehta, Counsel for Union of India. He has taken me through the notes of evidence and the impugned judgment and order of the trial court. 2. This appeal is filed by the Union of India challenging judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, IIIrd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. - 2 - 3. Brief facts are that Import Licence No.P/S/1940057 for an amount of Rs.7,98,214/- was issued in the name of M/s.Pragnesh Engineering Co. (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd. by the Government of Gujarat on 25th September, 1981. This licence was issued by the Office of Jt.CCI & E Ahmedabad under the scheme known as Actual User Scheme. A complaint was filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Exports and Imports, Ahmedabad, on the basis of the investigation by CBI against accused nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 120B and 420 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Accused No.1- M/s.Pragnesh Engineering Co. (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd. was discharged. Accused No.3 expired during the pendency of the trial and the criminal case against him abated on account of his death. Accused no.4 was discharged by the trial court after nine prosecution witnesses were examined on the ground that the prosecution was not in a position to produce the certificate of the CA. On 18th December, 1997, charge was framed against the respondent herein on the ground that the goods imported by the firm were not - 3 - used by the respondent-accused but was sold by him in the open market in contravention of the conditions of the Licence. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial court. Essentially the prosecution case is that the respondent had obtained the import licence on the basis of false and bogus consumption certificate issued by the CA-Shri R.D. Khona. It is their case that M/s.Pragnesh Engineering Co. (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd. did exist and it had no machinery or manufacturing activity and that for issuing false and bogus certificate, the respondent had induced the Jt.CCI to issue Import Licence. The trial court after going through the evidence on record observed that though the prosecution case was that the respondent had obtained necessary Import Licence on the basis of the bogus certificate issued by the CA-Shri R.D. Khona, the prosecution had not produced the said certificate. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent had applied for the Import Licence on behalf of M/s.Pragnesh Engineering Co.(Bombay) Pvt.Ltd. The - 4 - trial court, therefore, in view of this evidence held that the offence of Section 420 had not been established against the present respondent. The trial court, however, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to suggest that the goods which were imported by the respondent on the basis of the said Import Licence were sold by him illegally in the open market in contravention of the conditions of Import Licence. 5. It is well settled position in law that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. cannot substitute its own view to the view taken by the trial court unless it finds that the view taken by the trial court is perverse or that the finding is recorded by the trial court on the basis of evidence which does not exist. In the present case, however, the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view and therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the trial court. 6. Leave, therefore, is refused. - 5 - (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)