Roshanlal Agarwal vs Deputy Chief Controller Of … on 16 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Roshanlal Agarwal vs Deputy Chief Controller Of … on 16 April, 2009
Author: K.Ramanna

DATEI} THIS THE 16th DAY 09' APRIL, _2§T)i"3'§*J   A' 


THE} i+i{)N'8LE MR.JUs'r§t:E    "T 

CRIMINAL M i __ .'PET£'I'I{}N N0, 5458 & ,'5+a.§§;'20:?6' A 'V

CRL. "SP No. 545832006


I Roshanlai Agarwal  'V V   _ 
84 yrs, sj¢3.Ishwa£fi'as:Aga1wa1 ; «V " " '
rep M} 3. 'S«.'r_5e€';(~3«2,r';j§.2I¥?'* panja§poI€.--RQad V

C, P.'"_f'ax1;§; . V8bi:'£:baj:'i--:-%?.'»._   V V.

2 Nagfeiidraigal'   ' = 
5 1  :5/C>'E€0$}1a3i,i£d Agaxwal
A. -- .1'f<:: S1i}f:~;t11;::VLit£}c Gibbs Road
 Mazlhar Hifly
' E3'<:zca§:.~a}I~fi
 2 ?&f.'f]'l(:'f'*£'J_f Mi 3.81051 Inéusfiias
' -- ;;:%:f1:ndia_ Lza
' 1'é'c;:--.3»:l3;, '21" Panjajpoic Road
 C;E?.'I"e:;11c=:i:i{i011 is filed z1nci6:3:V'%ST§.:§i<,:igi{):1
482 Cr.P.C. praying to issue notice against the xéspoixdent
dircctixxg them to Show cause as ta why the 01'(_3.;éT'd&i§d" 

10»~20{}§ passed by the P.(}., F"I'C3--II, Bangalare-fCiit}f.i1i"Ci'L.f€P  4_
No.51/98 should no: he set aside  i;}'1€:"-.{;;'1I':i IZ{l1'[1E':}-.VV "

proceeding being C.C.n0.12(}9/8S,m;".t_c'ling' in tE1é'S:3I.._§?;011:ft
for econnmic afiences, Bangalnrg shouinl not' he" .g;1_;jas1{1_ec;'-.
and sat aside the order dated: ;2£§4i~€}--2L=(36 _ passed  'i.1V1

C'--r1.R.P,No.:';'51/98 on ma fileof thti=.R €).., F'rC.;1z,"Banga1m~e'--V.
city and ccmfixm the c.md.er ii-atcd i2v6--,£f3~19,9'F.. ;?3,s$<:d 

C."..€3.No.1209/85 an the fiie cfiifhe Sp1.'€§QLi;=7?.'for',f§c<:anoI:z3.ic
Otifances, Bangalore and quash "i;he --c_1imina1'procéiedings in
Complaint €L'.C.Ne.}2G"£?.[85 ;péndii1g"'*é;_1 the "Sp'i".Ciourt féar
Economic Offences. " I   

CRL.. "P Na;  _% %

B.r::1'i1v.9:}7:'r~::__' "

1 ..  §€Csha11IaiV--.Agarge:a1
" V' 84 ym, 8/0 Ifiiwaxrias Agagtwal
= .. _ rep Mfg, Steel industries of India
V' T.   23¢ panjajpoie Road
. {3..P_;v7I'_a1:~;§',' Bombay-»<¥

2   Gama
~.S3.«;_§"rs, sfo Roshanlal Agaxwal
:'g'--'--9 S'u_jis?.'1'11a Little: Gibbs Road

A'  Maifbar mi,

* Bcambaywé
Partner Gf MI s.S'tee1 industries
Of India Ltd
N(::.3iZ, 1235 Panjaipale Ra-aegi


3 Anil Kumar Agarwal
42 yrs, 310 Rc3s}:1a111a1 Agarwal
Partnttx" «of M] s.Stcel Inciusiaies of

india Ltd, No.32, 2115 Street   _
Paxijaxaplc,  ..  2   H «
Bombay"-4.   " [ ..  .. » ._ Patiiiaxgéitg  1; '

(By 811' 3 G V33_1"'xa_gwaz21',-..fi;é*J§)  '
AND:  ' '

Deputy Chief Controllér. % 

Importsam:1Exp1'ts _  :   
Bangalore:     .   Respondent
 %%%%   ;;,:~'~By~.;31v--;N"mgséiah, case)

'£31315; '(:;s7'iII1iT.1V}é£_3.}    pi*:t:ifio11 is filed under Section
482 Cz';P,(f:; Vpraying 'io"i:s:<;"ua'§ Iieiricc against the raspondent
dimciing fLh__4e1I1:.Vf:{:a' $hC3s2"  as to why the 01:16: dateci 23--«
13-2606 paésed bythé Pf{),, F'T'€3-II, Bangalore City in Cr.1.RP
No..:;'*§52/98 ahouidv not be set aside and the crtimixiai

 pri3cées:i'iqg"~-beixig C§{ff.No.1612/85 pending £11 the SgxI.C0ur::_
 . for _econ::srx-1 i(i~"~-- ofiences, Bangakme ghould 3101; be quashed
  f;a:s1d   Vz:':.sVifi._e"_. the order dated 25--1C¥~i20{}6 passed in

'£::~:,1;:.p;'r«:;:_..5<.2~,(§:s on the file ef the 19.0., FTC-II, Bangalcre

city   the: order datad 2642-199'? passed in
€3.C;N0;--.163;2f85 on the file 9f the Spi.Ci1r"t for Ecannmic

  Oflenctgsg. Bangalore anci quash the criminal proceedings in
 Ccmplaifit C.C1.I'€0. 1612/88 pending in the Sp1.CioI.1rt for
 Egofiomic Gfiences.

Them cfiminai ._ ...: gmtitiéuzs coming 01:: {gr

  -*v-édmiasion this day, the Court xnacie tilt follcawiixgz


Both these pefifions are fiittd by the pefifioilers —

accused under Section 482 Cr,P.C. to set

fiated 25-mzoas passed in C3rI.R’.P,No. 5:~’. 3z.vjV*5éL’/j%9+fi[8

passcé by the F”I'{1~H, Bangalore ;’i1i§’ic« qfltasil

proceedings pctmiing against ».

1209/1935 8:; 1612/1985 ” V
Petitiancr Hal iii.’ bof;}&1V”i’i1e.=iVL_:’:%fi3;.’Y1_j11a1’fittétirzsijs is {me

and fihtlt samc and he ziasmezg accuscd Nosfs 8:,

?s Lfiésswise, ‘ has been arrayed as accused
N03,? as-___ 8_ “”A§C.£:;§;os,12G9/1935 and 1612/1985

mgg}¢¢five1y. *2*i:.§§:;§ctit.{oner N93 :11 <::rm,m:o,s459;2m5 is

1' :a.s ;;.;_=s;;uscd No.9 in <::.{:,Ne.1<31:2/2095. Razspmidtirzlt.

fiéfifiens are cans and 'E316: same, The qucstitsn Gf

faéf law? imaslvcd in the cast: a:rt":: also {ms and the same;

Titfircféxié both 'Chi?! petitions are taken :19 together for fmai

' in mfier :9 avczigi rspefitign sf facts 311$ iaw.

Tbs briesf facts arf tbs: cast: 8113'. that rsspoxldent herein

37:21:31 ffitid a <.':Qmpia3lf:t against, pcfifianfim 313:1. {fibers for thfi


x ;,w”
AV _


Gfience undtitr Se-cfions 120-8, 457, 468,

Sécficm S of the Import and Exgort Before i§1u<:"=

ifianzeé Special Court fior Economic ..fB'af:i'g.¢1;1r:§rt4:.;é:i

CLC1N(:e.1612/ 198$, Thi: }:lfiti,i_':i0I1EfSV..'£'}'31

{flourt ftltiii application 1]1}sC§(iI" T§'3';IT"VL':(7'!f'l_(V".VtI1 aiong
with other accused discharge
contending that the h6igf:§;.:VV_§%éi1stituted to my
offcnccs Acis had no
juiisdictieii 1130 . Inifiafly the said

the aforesaid offences alltgtrci against them.

hfifltiil -~« compiajnant challenged {ha said cardcjzgof

before the leamfid F’§’C–I§, Banga1t§§c« V

Whfzrcifl the learned presiding Gfiicitr izhc *~+V if,

on thfi decision rcgaorted in Sfifl “crrcijcr 031” V

25~«Z£0-«:20{}6, allowing the _petit:i<}:r,,.,.sci§1Ej:1g asidat

£116 ardcr passed by directed the 'trial

csurt tbVdi3f!:é*Se E;:f?.;i'I1s"£2+':3A~Vi"5i*; afzfi '""s'.'::{ Hence this revision.
vvficéimgi peruscéi flaw: I"E'.E–?_1″$ EXPORTS vs ROSBAN LAL AGARWAL er.

H ‘{§;i’§+%E§SV”–(‘:;¢’0{};?§§i4) $<::<::: 139}; It is well settlcrd law that the

the Spficial Court constituted to oflimccs

, i;;'i1:1"isIt£é:blc: umicitr Spfiiitial Act, is campetsnt to try even an

=-f;fie 1f':ce punishabie tinder §¥"Z?;. Aecoréing ti) pfifiiififlfiffi in

u '?3»rI.P,5459/2006 since {hasty wart: axonarated from flit? aflergcd

c0nn"av€;m:ia::r1 sf imports and Exports Actw

dtigartxncntal pmcccdixsgs as per order _

passed by thr: A<:idI.Chicf Contmllfir of .V

the pmcecéings initiated against x

that the decision mftzzzmd '::o -aréxd 11:'l:7?,A§ '<311 by.iLm% *'

in passing {ha impugned naéie. to them.

Therefore: it is prayed, éfizrpcars, the
pefitéoners have not ‘iiattd 20~3~1992

b{‘:f0I'{‘: thti’: C,Qur°fg}aelo{§. been made by the’:

Semis b¢1{}§$?’T”m .H:)w::ver, ceyy of the said ordcr
p:rtx:1u19:”:V.fi1i§.s.;”{3:§:%’1′;f:_1′:fii”eiiong with a mama discloses that

in the depa§’tm;=:fiié11 {iitqizixy the pefifiontrs were cxoneratcé.

. * tfic’: bffcnces against them. Thcrcfom, in vitw 01°

it; the: aforesaid dacisien, fliifi €)1’d€I passeii

bAy._1?V;Ahc Vgdiiiiifieiow dinscting the Big} court to proceed with

trial ‘agjéiinst the pstitimzmm will be a fufiic exercise: and

;E3¢:%i£L:’:: {ha said artist has to be set aside: and the petifioizers

‘ Be dischargsé {ref the eharges Ievclied against thamg Thus,

Cr§.P.No.5459/2095 flied by tbs petitinncr is 11’:a4,t.);lV€:-_:’t[s.:1V_ be


As far as C:€1.P.,N0.5458]2006 is i}-71A.()L1!g:h;\\\

pefifionars eonicnd that cxoncrafégn

against the petifiiontrg in tilt: r (‘I§’§pE11’f:VI1’.l_t.i’I’1{al etfiuifgr }1iave “,

rzot produced any cap}: of _01″dVét1′-.}’&3u’ctf¢V::s3;’o:=: ‘fhe Couxt.
Even the respondent Zia the fiiétiéc of court
any contra order passcd Hawcver,

csnsficxéng f31£:=’.~._ f_E:=:ct ¥_1:hat–.i:Iri<: "'fz§:k:t_s___fand circumstances

invoivtfid :£11._A ihé'iv_«»a};«:;$1§é :":;j;f¢:si:'Vv§:..*1c!_'i11 Cri.P.No.5459/2006 is mm:
and thé' Vgamc paxtics were placsci alike and.

f1_1I"§:h-ff!' coI1 é;i~:£;é1i:2aig get that the 0ffc:11c:<=: is said to have

ciizzzmigicfi year 1983 and fhfilff is lapse of men:

fi,1'JE,i:.Vf1:" = Ry::a: :."s, tint: pfifitionaxs descxvss a iiberai

c€;1;'éi:icr?_1fi4:;é§;'[V'f'z*c:sm this cou:rt, Mort: (war, the imports and

E-xp0:'*:s 1.(Contr01} Act 1%? has bfifftjifl mpeaied 3&1: the

'~ ggéfijywhflafi fhczmfereg I am of the cppinicsn that any mdcr

Qjigaizlst the gaetifionms {cs procrtazci with Thfi $313} will aisa be

filfiifi and Wfi} 33:: waste of pimcicus fiiffléf :31" €'f7«::surt., Q1' course}




the offcncc is Comznitted. before: the xtpfialjng kc:

aztzd Courts can take cognizaizcc of the

commiitcd bef-arc: ntpealing of ffhi': ffofiécvizr,

conskifiting the long deiilay in "

momovsr cgnsideréng V

constgitutcd cast: which is €;¢:;:1’§}3;et€fi.. _ with’ ‘Skis _{;ctitio31 in
Crl.P.No.S459/2006 been exonctratctzi
firem the d€pa;”un_enta$”‘é.rr.§i;iiyAjiufi “they were sat at

iiberty, as .5: 1A{1;:{_,*ii:1;3§t1’1t: same bencfit ten

the pstitionmfs by

Accaréingly, b<J£h setting
aside the impugnmfl. cs.ItlAerii=é:s§*§§§:{}V1.:5y bflinw aga'u:i$t
the pefifigifiérg 31$ initiacd against:

men; befofié hereby quashed. Thtffi hail

éigfistzmtfi it:’X€C1Zf.€d shali stand cancellcri.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information