sanjay 1 1047.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1047 OF 2011 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava. ... Petitioner. V/s. Union of India and another. ... Respondents. P.C.N.Agarwal for the petitioner. Ms.Nilee Pande for respondent No.1. H.J.Dedhia , APP for the State. CORAM : B. H. MARLAPALLE & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED : 21st APRIL 2011. P.C. : We have heard Mr.Agarwal, leaned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be a social worker and a self- appointed President of Conscious Citizen Forum. As per him, he is a whistle blower and has been filing complaints against the misdeeds of the officers of the Customs Department. He has filed PIL (Stamp)No. 3325/2011 before this Court praying for direction to inquire into the representations and complaints made by him at Exh.`D`, `F’, `H’ and `I’ annexed to the said petition. sanjay 2 1047.11-wp 3. In this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the summons issued under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Superintendent of Customs i.e. respondent No.1 on 7th February 2011. He further seeks direction against the Commissioner of Customs to the effect that his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act be recorded before the Magistrate. 4. It appears that the petitioner approached the Sessions Court, Raigad at Alibag with an application for anticipatory bail and the same was rejected on 9th February 2011. He, subsequently, filed Criminal Misc.Application No.142/2011 for anticipatory bail and the same was rejected on 4th March 2011. He approached this Court with Anticipatory Bail Application No.228/2011which was rejected on 6th April 2011. He sought one week’s time to surrender which was granted on the condition that he shall report at the office of the investigating officer everyday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has also prayed for anticipatory bail, which prayer cannot be considered. 5. As per our direction, the petitioner remained present before us today and we directed the Officer from the Customs Department to record his statement and, accordingly, his statement has been recorded. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.1 states that the petitioner is not disclosing material information and is avoiding replies on specific queries and, therefore, further investigation about his role in sanjay 3 1047.11-wp the alleged scam of duty drawback by M/s.Pink Baby and M/s.Charms is required to be made. It is evident from the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag dated 4th March 2011 that the petitioner is the partner of a company by name “K Company” and is holding IEC Code. He also deals in the business of export and import which is indicated by the statements of various bank accounts, namely, Hindustan Co-operative Bank Ltd., Union Bank of India and Andhra Bank. It is further pointed out that in Account No.26 with the Hindustan Co- operative Bank Ltd., he deposited the following amounts on the respective dates: Rs.1,25,000/- on 10th January 2010 Rs. 50,000/- on 15th January 2010 Rs.3,00,000/- on 20th January 2010 Rs.1,00,000/- on 24th January 2010 ------------------- Rs.5,75,000/- In one account itself an amount of Rs.5,75,000/- came to be deposited in cash and it is claimed by Shri Shabbir Rangwala, who is the partner of those two companies that the said amount was paid to the petitioner by cash for his assistance rendered in export and import, as per the Customs Department. 6. Having regard to the orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the applications for anticipatory bail as well as the order passed by this Court on 6th April 2011, prima facie; there is sanjay 4 1047.11-wp material calling for investigation into the role of the petitioner in the alleged duty drawback scam, under the Customs Act. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no case made out to cause interference in the summons issued under section 108 of the Customs Act. We have also noted that in this petition the petitioner has written his name as “Kamlesh Kumar Shrivastava” while he writes his name as “K.Kumar, President of Conscious Citizen Forum” and even in the correspondence with the office of the Commissioner of Customs he has written his name as “K.Kumar”. Be that as it may, this petition must fail at the threshold. The petition is rejected summarily. 7. At this stage, an oral application for stay of this order was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no order of ad-interim relief operating in favour of the petitioner and the period of one week to surrender as granted by the learned Single Judge has already expired. Hence the oral application is rejected. (A. M. THIPSAY, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)