Dismissed

Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai v. Union of India Thru. Deptt. of Revenue Intelligence Lko.

Allahabad HC14 May 2024/791/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a Customs Act case involving smuggling of gold and foreign currency. The court held that the applicant failed to explain the source of the seized cash, lacks documentary evidence of business transactions, and did not cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is rejected. The applicant is directed to seek regular bail if required.

Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai Vs Union of India Thru. Deptt… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC-LKO:38482

¶3

Court No. - 21

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 791 of 2024

¶5

Applicant :- Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Deptt. Of Revenue Intelligence Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Shivanshu Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey

¶6

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent - Department of Revenue Intelligence, Lucknow which is taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed rejoinder affidavit to the said counter, after serving a copy on the learned counsel for the DRI and the same are taken on record.

¶10

Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶11

By means of the instant anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in respect of DRI Case No.6/2024, under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, Police Station DRI, District Lucknow.

¶12

The facts as borne out from the record reveals that DRI received specific information and acting upon the same, it intercepted two persons namely Lalmohan Panja and Harekrishna Parai, two co-accused on 20.02.2024 at around 09:20 PM in the Second AC Coach bearing No.A1 of Pushpak Express (Train No.12533) from Charbagh Railway Station, Lucknow and their baggage was searched. From their three Trolley Bags,

¶13

¶14

558.900 Grams of Gold of foreign origin valued at Rs.49,760,000/- and cash in Indian Currency worth Rs.3,29,25,000/- is said to have been recovered. It was informed by the two co-accused that they were travelling to Mumbai to deliver the above recovered gold and ornaments and cash currency to the owners namely Ramkrishna Parai (the applicant) and Laxman Parai (another co-accused).

¶15

Upon further questioning of the two co-accused follow up search was conducted of a flat situated at Chowk, Lucknow additional gold of foreign origin measuring 7700.000 Grams valued at Rs.3,69,60,000/- was recovered from a godrej locker/Safe which was in the said flat.

¶16

It was further informed by the two co-accused Harekrishna Parai and Lalmohan Panja that another locker was at the residence of another coaccused namely Sumit Kumar Rastogi.

¶17

The DRI acting upon the aforesaid information also searched the house of Sumit Kumar Rastogi from where another locker was recovered. The key of the aforesaid locker was recovered from the personal search of the co-accused Harekrishna Parai. In the said locker, gold ornaments measuring 26500.000 grams valued at Rs.12,42,62,400/- was recovered.

¶18

As per the case of the prosecution, the gold pieces, gold ornaments so recovered was smuggled and is made from gold from foreign origin.

¶19

As per the seizure memo, dated 21.02.2024, the following items were

¶20

recovered and seized:-

¶21

Sl	Packages	Description	Quantity	Total Value of	Identifying
No		of Goods		the Goods (In	description
				Rs.)

¶22

¶23

	One Plastic box wrapped with	Gold Bar cut pieces and Gold	41.900	2,68,160/-
1	markeen and sealed with DRI Seal	Ornaments of 18K without Hallmark and HUID	517.000	24,81,600/-	P-1
2	One Plastic box wrapped with markeen and sealed with DRI Seal	Gold Ornaments of 18K without Hallmark and HUID	7700.000	3,69,60,000/-	P-2
3	One Plastic box wrapped with markeen and sealed with DRI Seal	Gold Ornaments of 18K without Hallmark and HUID	26500.000	12,42,62,400/-	P-3
4	One Plastic box wrapped with markeen and sealed with DRI Seal	Indian Currency	29000 notes (Rs.500/- denomination)	1,45,00,000/-	P-4
5	1 Trolley Bag wrapped with markeen and sealed with DRI Seal	Indian Currency	21000 notes (Rs.500/- denomination)	1,05,00,000/-	P-5
			15682 notes (Rs.500/- denomination)	78,41,000/-
6	1 Trolley Bag wrapped with markeen and	Indian Currency	120 notes (Rs.200/- denomination)	24,000/-	P-6
	sealed with DRI Seal		600 notes (Rs.100/- denomination)	60,000/-
7 8	1 Brown Envelope sealed with DRI Seal 1 Godrej Safe sealed with DRI Seal	Pouch of Plastic Polythene Godrej Safe	- -	NCV NCV	P-7 P-8
9	One Plastic box wrapped with markeen and sealed with DRI Seal	Bunch of Keys	-	NCV	P-9
		Total		19,68,97,160/-

¶24

¶25

It is in the aforesaid context that two the co-accused Harekrishna Parai and Lalmohan Panja were apprehended and are in jail.

¶26

The submission of Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the owner of M/s. Ram Laxman & Company.

¶27

It is further submitted that the said firm in course of its regular business deals in gold pieces and gold ornaments which are prepared and sold. The firm is duly registered under GST and the applicant also pays its taxes. It is further urged that in course of its business, the applicant sells gold ornaments even in the State of U.P. and moreover had purchased items from some firms in the State of U.P.

¶28

In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has brought on record several documents as Annexure No.4 to indicate that M/s. Ram Laxman & Company buys gold from various firms. It has been submitted that GST has also been paid. Certain documents indicating the stock report has also been filed as Annexure No.4 including certain rawstatement including of the gold purchased from various firms and they are sought to be corroborated from the invoices filed as part of Annexure No.4 to submit that the applicant is a bonafide, genuine firm where it undertakes the business of jewellery and for that purpose, they purchase gold bullion, thereafter, design the ornaments which are then sold to its customers not only in the State of Maharashtra but across various States including the State of U.P.

¶29

It is further submitted that it is absolutely incorrect to suggest that the said gold pieces and ornaments which were recovered are made from

¶30

¶31

smuggled gold of foreign origin.

¶32

It has also been pointed out that out of the recovery, some of the recovered items belongs to M/s. Vishakha Ornaments, Karol Bagh, Delhi which is owned by Vishwanath Mandal. It is urged that in absence of any material to indicate that the gold pieces or gold ornaments were of foreign origin, at best, the said ornaments/gold pieces can be said to be without any Hallmark which is required in terms of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016.

¶33

It is also urged that under the said Act of 2016, Section 29 prescribes for penalty for such contravention and inter-alia amongst others, it also provides that any person, who contravenes Section 17 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extend to two years or with fine which shall not be less than two lakhs rupees for the first contravention and not less than five lakhs rupees for the second and subsequent contraventions. It is thus submitted that insofar as the alleged violation of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 is concerned, the applicant can very well pay the necessary penalty, however, this will not grant any benefit to the prosecution as the applicant has been charged only in terms of Section 135 of the Customs Act.

¶34

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that insofar as the cash is concerned, if there is any notice or inquiry made by the Income-Tax Department, the applicant would face the same, however, it does not give right to the Custom Authorities to implicate the applicant falsely merely because the cash has been recovered and in absence of any material to indicate how the cash was generated illegally by the applicant, hence, this

¶35

¶36

burden has not been explained or discharged by the DRI.

¶37

It is also submitted that the applicant is a bonafide businessman, who pays his taxes regularly and the recovery/seizure of the items and cash which has been made belongs to the firm and the applicant has deep roots in the society and the applicant is not at flight risk nor in a position to tamper with any evidence or influence any witness, accordingly, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶38

Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the DRI has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. So far as the facts are concerned, which have been noticed above, there is no dispute regarding the same, except the version of the competing parties.

¶39

Shri Dubey urged that the DRI acted upon specific information and apprehended the two co-accused Harekrishna Parai and Lalmohan Panja, which resulted in the seizure of gold pieces, gold ornaments as well as huge quantity of Indian currency in cash.

¶40

It has further been urged that the applicant has not been cooperating and despite summons, the applicant has not appeared to get his statements recorded. In absence of any confirmation, apparently what looks is the fact that the two co-accused Harekrishna Parai and Lalmohan Panja were apprehended with such huge quantity of gold, gold ornaments and cash. No satisfactory answer could be given from where such quantity of cash was received. It has also not been indicated from whom the said cash was received in lieu of the gold ornaments sold. In such circumstances, apparently, the case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 is made out and as such the anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶41

¶42

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶43

Apparently, there is no dispute regarding the seizure of the items. The applicant takes note of the seizure and has submitted that the seized items are part of his business. It has also been submitted that the applicant is ready to pay the necessary taxes/penalties which may be leviable in terms of the Customs Act, 1962 or in terms of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016.

¶44

In light of the above admitted facts, this Court finds that even though the applicant has brought certain documents on record, which are part of Annexure No.4, however, the same are only GST Invoices wherein certain purchases have been made by the firm M/s. Ram Laxman & Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels which are random statements. Merely because the applicant deals with the aforesaid items of gold pieces and gold ornaments does not mean that the applicant is entitled to a carte blanche . The statements are relating to the month of February, 2024, however, though the anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant himself, but he has not indicated that which are the firms to whom the said gold pieces/gold ornaments were sold from where such quantity of cash has been received as payment by the other co-accused, who are said to be his employees.

¶45

There is also no statement/documents brought on record to indicate that two other co-accused from whom the cash and jewellery/gold pieces were recovered are their regular employees. Mere random entries into the bank account statements does not prima-facie satisfy this Court. Under what circumstances, the goods were sold and cash has been received is also not mentioned except the bland submissions of the learned counsel for the

¶46

¶47

applicant without any corresponding documents.

¶48

It is also relevant to notice that though the applicant submits that he controls the firm M/s. Ram Laxman & Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels, however, no document has been brought on record to indicate as to what is the proprietary right of the applicant over the two firms M/s. Ram Laxman & Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels. Whether it is a proprietorship or a partnership and if so then whether the applicant is its proprietor or partner and if so to what extent. This could easily be substantiated by filing relevant documents in this regard. In absence of it what can be seen is the fact that the document brought on record as Annexure No.4 relate to the firm M/s. Ram Laxman & Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels, but how the applicant is in and claims ownership/control cannot be deduced. The GST registration, partnership deed/Income Tax Return/ other Government Documents could have been brought on record but that has not been done. It is also not clear from the said documents i.e. Annexure No.4 as to when the firms came in existence and who have been its proprietor/owners.

¶49

Apparently, if the applicant and his firm M/s. Ram Laxman & Company had been dealing with such quantum and scale of transaction in regular course of business then there must have been proper invoicing of the items and the cash flow quantum which is generated from the business would necessarily point towards the accounts of the applicant's firm being audited but bringing few vouchers and GST invoices do not clearly support the contention of the applicant. Neither any account statement nor the Income-Tax Returns nor any other documents of the firm indicating that number of employees, their names and the salaries paid has been brought on

¶50

¶51

record. Merely the submission that the seized items belong to the applicant and his firm and he is ready to pay the penalties and fee does not absolve the applicant from explaining with particularity regarding the huge quantum of cash, gold and ornaments record and from which firm and to whom the sales have been made and from whom the money has been received. There is apparently no explanation. Moreover, the summons issued by the DRI have not been responded by the applicant and he has not cooperated nor he appeared to get his statement recorded.

¶52

Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant regarding that the offence is punishable with maximum sentence of seven years is concerned, in this regard, it will be relevant to notice that this is an economic offence and in light of what has been discussed hereinabove and in absence of any material brought on record by the applicant, the quantum involved is such that this Court is unable to persuade itself to grant the anticipatory bail.

¶53

Considering the aforesaid aspect, this Court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected . However, it shall be open for the applicant to seek regular bail and in case such an application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned on its own merit in light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 .

¶54

Order Date :- 14.05.2024 Rakesh/-

¶55

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai v. Union of India Thru. Deptt. of Revenue Intelligence Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai v. Union of India Thru. Deptt. of Revenue Intelligence Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P.through Collector Raibareli Vs Rakesh Kumar and Others

Hafiz Abdul Rehman and Anr. Vs Jitendra Kumar Sachdeo and Anr.

Hanuman Singh Vs Badri Bishal Singh

Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai vs Union of India Thru. Deptt. of Revenue Intelligence Lko.

Lalmohan Panja vs Union of India Thru. Deptt. of Revenue Intelligence Lko.

Harekrishna Parai vs Union of India Thru. Deptt. of Revenue Intelligence Lko.