The Delhi Court has imposed Rs. 50,000 cost on the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Officer and stated that cost of Rs 50K to be borne by PADG, DZU, DRI if not recovered from salary of erring officers for lapses in a prosecution complaint in court initiated after 17 years.
The bench of ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia has despite the untiring effort of 17 years, the DRI still failed to keep all the documents before the court and further did not take the occasion on the very first instance as where the aid of the court is required for prosecution.
The DRI seeks to prosecute the present accused alleging that the accused have imported the items declared to have thickness of 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm, instead of actual thickness of 1.4 to 1.5 mm. Since, on the different thickness item, different import duty are charged, the accused herein have evaded the import duty which otherwise would have been payable per law, if the same would have been disclosed truthfully.
Voluminous documents were seized from the premises of Sh. Raj Kumar Anand alongwith Indian currency from the residential premises way back in 2005 when offence is said to have been committed. It is also submitted that the laptop belongs to Sh. Raj Kumar Anand was also seized, which bears the testimony, wherein the accused was furnishing the false information to the department (deflated bills) while he was importing goods to this country and was receiving actual and original bills from the exporter located in Taiwan/China.
The alleged offence is stated to have been committed in the year 2005. It has taken almost 17 long years for the DRI to file the complaint case herein. It was only in the year 2023 that the case came before the Court to be tried and it is at the stage of argument on charge. The instance of delay and poor prosecution does not cease herein but the bare testimony is evident earlier as one more application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C was moved which was allowed Predecessor ACJM in which the witnesses were summoned to be examined and Predecessor had clearly mentioned that it is not a deliberate mistake but an inadvertent one that prosecution was constrained to move such earlier application.
It is pertinent to mention that this is the second application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, therefore it rules out deliberate mistake but an inadvertent one as such occasion was also available at time of earlier application.
The court noted that the application is allowed subject to the cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid in DLSA by the DRI. It is clarified herein, that the department has to deduct the amount from the responsible officer for such lapse as since the cost is being imposed upon the State/ Department of State, it cannot be the case that the same be burden upon Exchequer.
The court held that the health of prosecution with 17 years delay, case being registered in 2023 before the Court, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has already been moved with present application being second application and delay on the part of DRI to bring it to the notice of Court with intricacies that are confidential documents. The reason for imposing the cost is also that there has not been any genuine endeavor on the part of the department to locate the already seized documents.
The court held that the lack of vigilance and diligence on the part of the Department speaks volume and responsible officer be attributed by the Principal, ADG, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit B-3 & 4, 6th Floor, Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003, and the cost shall be deducted from the salary of such officer and if there are series of officer then proportionate reduction of salary be deducted from such officers.
In the case the Principal, ADG, DRI, Delhi fails to attribute such negligence on the concerned officer, the cost shall be ultimately deducted from the salary of Principal, ADG, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit B-3 & 4, 6th Floor, Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. It is rather deprecated that such tale of submission, with averment that same cannot be procured but for the order of the court or by the higher officials of the custom speaks volume that despite the untiring effort of 17 years, the DRI is still failed to keep all the documents before the court and further did not take the occasion on the very first instance as where the aid of the court is required for prosecution.
Case Details
Case Title: DRI v Baba Leather Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: CNR No. DLCT-12-000115-2023 Ct. Case No. 12/2023
Date: 16.12.2024
Counsel for DRI : SCGSC Satish Agarwala
Counsels for Accused : Advocates Piyush Kumar, Gunjan Tanwar, Ashish Bhatt
