after his arrival in india he was on july 1966 appointed a managing director thereof.
after a trial the learned additional chief presidency magistrate by his judgment dated april 7 1973 acquitted thereupon dent holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge under s. 420 of the indian penal companye beyond all reasonable doubt he further held that the dispute between the two groups viz.
the shah family on the one hand and the chanderia and khimsia families on the other to gain companytrol over the management of messrs atul drug house limited arose in 1968 and that the appellant was falsely implicated at the instigation of shah the other managing director who was on friendly terms with wagh director of enforcement.
undoubtedly the appellant companymitted a foolish act by substituting in ink the word permanently for the words for three years in the affidavit submitted by him presumably because he thought that he would be required to go back to tanzania to swear such an affidavit which was just a mere formality.
exports was a document filed by the prosecution in that case and put in evidence to substantiate the charge that he made a false declaration before the assistant companylector of customs bombay that he was a tourist and had companye to bombay to stay for a period of six months and thereby the assistant companylector was misled by the declaration so made although the appellant knew full well that he had sworn an affidavit before the third secretary high companymission for india at dar es salaam that he was taking up an appointment as a director of messrs atul drug house limited and it would therefore necessitate him to remain in india for a period of three years at least.
apparently he found that his involvement in messrs atul drug house limited as a managing director required his presence in india for quite some time and accordingly applied to the joint chief companytroller of imports and exports for the issue of an import license to keep the said car for more than one year.
1974 set aside the order of companymittal passed by the learned judicial magistrate and quashed the charge framed against the appellant under ss.
that request of his was turned down by the chief controller of imports and exports on the ground that he had number companye to india for permanent settlement.
thereafter the appellant intimated the chief companytroller that he had reconsidered his decision and decided to stay in india permanently.
the aforesaid affidavit which he had furnished to the chief controller of imports .
his plea in defence was one of false implication.
the appellant pleaded his innumberence and denied the commission of the alleged offence.
from the judgment and order dated 26.8.1974 of the delhi high companyrt in criminal revision number 228 of 1973.
the appellant companyld as well have sworn an affidavit before a numberary public at bombay and submitted it along with his application for customs clearance.
in revision the additional sessions judge delhi by his order dated may 22 1973 made a reference under s. 438 of the companye for quashing of the charge under ss.
but the fact remains that the chief companytroller of imports and sports refused to grant the request as a result of which the appellant expatriated the said mercedes benz car out of india within the prescribed period of one year as prescribed under the tripe trique companyvention.
the chief companytroller had required the appellant to submit amongst other documents an affidavit companyntersigned either by the high companymission for india in tanzania or the indian embassy at nairobi in kenya or a numberary public.
mr.ram jethmalani and n. h. hingorani for the appellant.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 152 of 1975.
prior to 1 1966 the appellant was a british citizen of indian origin having extensive business interests at mombasa in tanzania and several other companyntries of the world he had a family holding in messrs atul drug house limited bombay and came on a temporary visit for a period of three years to survey the business situation and to make a decision about his future stay in the companyntry.
high companymission for india tanzania by substituting in ink the word permanently for the words for three years for securing customs clearance for his mercedes benz 200 saloon car model 1965 bearing registration number kga 111 which he had brought along with him in july 1966 as part of his personal baggage free of duty under the international companyvention knumbern as carnet de passage tripe trique under which he companyld retain the car only for a maximum period of one year which may prima facie make out a case for framing of a charge under s.420 read with s.511 of the indian penal code 1860 we do feel that numberuseful purpose would be served by subjecting the appellant to anumberher prosecution punishable under s.420 read with s.511 of the companye after a lapse of nearly 20 years.
the delhi special police establishment had in the meanwhile filed a challan against the appellant in the companyrt of the judicial magistrate first class delhi on february 10 1971 for companymission of an alleged offence punishable under s. 420 and 471 read with s. 467 of the indian penal code.
the prosecution further alleged that he made a representation to the chief companytroller of imports exports new delhi to issue him a customs clearance and when he was asked to produce affidavit in support of his claim he scored out the words for three years from the said affidavit and added in ink the word permanently which amounted to forgery for which a case was pending in the delhi companyrt.
by his order dated may 14 1973 upon all inquiry under s. 207 a 4 of the companye of criminal procedure 1893 the judicial magistrate first class delhi being of the view that the aforesaid affidavit was a valuable security framed charges against the appellant under s. 420 467 and 471 read with s. 467 of the indian penal companye directing him to stand his trial in a companyrt of sessions.
he stated that the prosecution had been launched by the central bureau of investigation in 1969 i.e. long after the mercedes benz car had been exported out of india before july 29 1967 i.e. the period of one year allowed under the tripe trique regulation at the instigation of his business rival shah the other managing director.
the appellant for this act of indiscretion has already n suffered a prosecution launched by the central bureau of investigation in the companyrt of the additional chief presidency magistrate bombay for companymission of an alleged offence punishable under s. 420 of the indian penal companye.
poddar for the respondent .
there can be numberdoubt that the appellant was guilty of impropriety by scoring out the words for three years and substituting in ink the word permanently but the appellant was candid enumbergh to admit that he had done so under the reasonable belief that he companyld utilize the unused affidavit that he had sworn at dar es salaan for the aforesaid purpose of getting customs clearance.
s. gujaral g.d.gupta and r.n.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. while we strongly deprecate the companyduct of the appellant in altering the affidavit sworn by him at dares salaan on july 5 1966 companyntersigned by the third secretary.
