Supreme Court of India
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Dilip Mulani on 20 September, 2024
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal
2024 INSC 712
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3863 OF 2024
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1273 of 2021)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION …APPELLANT
VERSUS
DILIP MULANI & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECT
1. The respondent no.1-accused no.5 (referred hereinafter
as “the respondent”), along with five other accused, was sought
to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 120
B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections
7,12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). By the impugned
judgment, the High Court proceeded to discharge the
respondent by setting aside the order of the learned Special
Judge.
2. It is alleged in the chargesheet that one Mehul Jhaveri-
accused no.1 was the authorised signatory of M/s Khimji
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2024.09.20
Poonja Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘the company’).
17:34:03 IST
The company was functioning as a Customs House Agent in
Reason:
Mumbai. Acting in criminal conspiracy with one Chandubhai
Criminal Appeal No. 3863 of 2024 Page 1 of 8
Kalal-accused no.2, the then Superintendent of Customs at
Ahmedabad, along with one Tushar Vaghela-accused no.3,
who was the export executive of the said company, Mehul
Jhaveri, paid a sum of Rs.58,000/- to accused Chandubhai
Kalal for clearing refund claim of Rs.46,87,000/- of the
Company’s clients. Money was paid to Chandubhai Kalal by
Mehul Jhaveri through Tushar Vaghela on 19th July 2010 in
consideration of clearing three pending refund cases of the
company’s clients.
3. The allegation is that the respondent was the Managing
Director of the company since 1998-99, and accused no.6-
Dushyant Mulani was one of the Directors of the company. The
allegation is that accused no.1-Mehul Jhaveri was the
company’s regional head looking after CFIA work. Accused
no.3-Tushar Vaghela, was working under the said Mehul
Jhaveri. It is alleged that the amount of Rs.58,000/- represents
1.25% of the total refund cleared by accused Chandubhai
Kalal. The allegation regarding the payment/acceptance of a
bribe of Rs.58,000/- is confined to Mehul Jhaveri, Chandubhai
Kalal and Tushar Vaghela.
4. Another allegation in the charge sheet pertains to the
payment of illegal gratification to one Anand Singh Mall, posted
as an Assistant Commissioner, Air Cargo at Ahmedabad from
8th December 2009 till 1st March 2011. The said Anand Singh
Mall was looking after the export, import and refund work. It
was his duty to sanction Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund
claims and to make payment thereof. The allegation in the
Criminal Appeal No. 3863 of 2024 Page 2 of 8
charge sheet is regarding the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- to
Anand Singh Mall. The allegation is that Anand Singh Mall
required a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to be paid in Delhi. The case
is that one R.C. Pagaria, in charge of the company in Delhi,
received the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through M/s Poornima
Angadiya from the company’s head office in Mumbai. As per
the instructions of Mehul Jhaveri, R.C. Pagaria paid a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/- to one Kishan Rajwar who received it on behalf
of Anand Singh Mall.
5. Another allegation is that on 21st October 2010, the said
Mehul Jhaveri informed accused no.6-Dushyant Mulani that
he had sent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent, which
has been handed over to Anand Singh Mall. The allegation in
the charge sheet is that Mehul Jhaveri instructed Dushyant
Mulani to inform one D.B. Jhadav as Anand Singh Mall was
likely to contact the said Jadhav. Accordingly, there was a
telephone conversation between Anand Singh Mall and Jadhav.
It is alleged that the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid as illegal
gratification to Anand Singh Mall by Jhadav. According to the
case of the prosecution, in the expenditure notebook
maintained by Mehul Jhaveri, entries were made showing a
sum of Rs.3,50,000/- against Anand Singh Mall. In the same
notebook, there is an entry of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the
respondent.
6. The charge sheet was filed on 28th September 2012. On
8th July 2016, the learned Special Judge under the PC Act
rejected the application for discharge made by the respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 3863 of 2024 Page 3 of 8
On 29th November 2017, the High Court allowed the Revision
Application filed by the respondent and passed an order of
discharge. On 20th August 2019, this Court passed an order of
remand to the High Court on the ground that the High Court
did not analyse factual aspects. After the order of remand, by
the impugned order dated 14th February 2020, the High Court
has again passed an order of discharge.
SUBMISSIONS
7. The Learned Additional Solicitor General has taken us
through the relevant parts of the charge sheet and the
impugned judgment. Her submission is that, at the time of
framing of charge, the Court is not expected to examine and
assess the material placed before it in detail. It must examine
the material only to ascertain whether a prima facie case of
commission of offences alleged has been made out against the
accused. She submitted that the main allegation in the charge
sheet against the respondent was of involvement in the
conspiracy. When the amounts of Rs.3,50,000/- and
Rs.1,50,000/-, respectively, were paid to Anand Singh Mall, the
respondent was the company’s Managing Director. The amount
was paid on behalf of the company. She submitted that the
High Court should not have discarded the intercepted
conversation at this stage. She submits that a prima facie case
was made out to proceed against the respondent.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
supported the impugned order. He submitted that the
respondent is not a party to any telephonic conversation with
Criminal Appeal No. 3863 of 2024 Page 4 of 8
Mehul Jhaveri or any other accused. He pointed out that in the
reply filed to the discharge application, the appellant stated
that the letters DM in the notebook maintained by Mehul
Jhaveri refer to Dushyant Mulani, who is a co-accused and not
to the respondent. The reference to DM appears in the same
notebook against the entry of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. He
submitted that the notebook does not contain entries made or
maintained by the respondent. He would submit that there is
no reason to disturb a very well-reasoned decision of the High
Court, which considers all the relevant material on the record
of the charge sheet. He submitted that the High Court had
examined the charge sheet only to ascertain whether there was
any prima facie case against the respondent and that the High
Court had not crossed the limit.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
9. We have perused the charge sheet and other material on
record. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that the allegation
is about payment of illegal gratification of Rs.58,000/-,
Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively, on behalf of the
said company to officials of the customs department to procure
benefits to its customers. As regards the allegation regarding
the payment of Rs.58,000/-, the case is that accused no.1-
Mehul Jhaveri paid the said amount to another accused,
Chandubhai Kalal. The charge sheet contains no allegation
against the respondent to connect him with the payment. The
allegations of being part of a criminal conspiracy are made
against the respondent. As regards payment of illegal
gratification of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively
Criminal Appeal No. 3863 of 2024 Page 5 of 8
paid to Anand Singh Mall, in the charge sheet, the allegation
against the respondent is that the respondent in conspiracy
with Mehul Jhaveri abetted the offence of bribery and arranged
for payment of illegal gratification of Rs.3,50,000/- to Anand
Singh Mall at Delhi through one Kishan Rajwar, who happens
to be the respondent’s nephew. Further allegation is that Mehul
Jhaveri, in conspiracy with the respondent and one Dushyant
Mulani, arranged to deliver illegal gratification of Rs.1,50,000/-
to Anand Singh Mall in Mumbai.
10. The prosecution is not relying upon any telephonic
conversation between the respondent and any of the co-
accused or the person to whom illegal gratification was
allegedly paid. In the charge sheet, as regards payment of the
sum of Rs.3,50,000/- it is stated thus:
“From the above facts it can be safely inferred that
on 29.07.10. Shri Jhaveri had sent Rs.3,50,000/-
to his Mumbai office for effecting payment to Anand
Mall at Mumbai. But as Shri Anand Mall wanted the
delivery of the amount at Delhi while discussing
with Shri Jhaveri on 31.08.10, Shri Jhaveri made
the arrangement for delivery of Rs.3.5 lakh through
Shri R.C.Pagaria. On 31.08.10, as per the
conspiracy hatached between Mehool Jhaveri and
Shri Anand Singh Mall, as per the direction of Shri
mall, Shri R.C.Pagaria paid Rs.3.5 lakhs to Shri
Kishan Rajawar, nephew of Shri Anand Singh Mall.
Further, on the same day evening ie., on 31.08.10,
Shri R.C.Pagaria during conversation with Shri
mehool Jhaveri confirmed about delivery to Shri
Kishan @ Chota Kishan. The above facts put
together shows that the word “Parking’ in the
conversations pertains to delivery of money.”Criminal Appeal No. 3863 of 2024 Page 6 of 8
11. Regarding payment of Rs.1,50,000/-, the allegation is
that Mehul Jhaveri informed Dushyant Mulani that he had
sent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent to be handed
over to the said Anand Singh Mall. The prosecution is relying
upon entries made by Mehul Jhaveri in his diary. The entry
dated 29th July 2010 shows that the respondent’s name is at
the top of the page. It is recorded that “A Mall – ad-hoc as per
the list attached show to DM – Rs.3,50,000/-”. It must be noted
here that in the reply submitted by the appellant to the
application for discharge, it is stated that the letters ‘DM’ stand
for Dushant Bhai Mulani and not Dilip Mulani (respondent)
12. Regarding payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to Anand Singh
Mall, the diary maintained by the accused no.1 shows that
there is an entry “Anand Mangal – trans to DM @ APO –
Rs.1,50,000/-”. Thus, in this entry, the reference is also to
Dushyant Mulani.
13. The High Court has elaborately dealt with this material.
The High Court has examined the statements of the witnesses
and documents which were a part of the charge sheet. The High
Court has observed that in the diary entries made by accused
no.1, the word “Dilipbhai” has been mentioned at the top.
Against the entries of the amounts of Rs.3,50,000/- and
Rs.1,50,000/-, the letters DM have been mentioned. However,
no witness stated that the letters DM meant the respondent,
not Dushyant Mulani. As pointed out earlier, in reply to the
discharge application, the appellant admitted that letters DM
refer to Dushyant Mulani and not the respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 3863 of 2024 Page 7 of 8
14. We have perused the entries in the diary allegedly made
by accused no.1. Though, on the top of the page, the name Shri
Dilip Bhai appears, both the entries regarding the sum of
Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- refer to DM.
15. Therefore, except for the bald allegation of participation
in the alleged conspiracy without giving any details of the
conspiracy, the respondent has been roped in the charge sheet.
His name did not appear in the First Information Report.
Taking the material forming part of the charge sheet as true, it
cannot be said that a prima facie case of involvement of the
respondent was made out. In the circumstances, we find no
error in the view taken by the High Court when it discharged
the respondent.
16. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We make it clear that
the observations made by the High Court and this Court
remain confined only to the role ascribed to the respondent.
.……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……………………..J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
September 20, 2024.
Criminal Appeal No. 3863 of 2024 Page 8 of 8