Page 126 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

36 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur after hearing the peti-
tioners and considering the papers granted bail to the petitioners.
7. After getting the copy of the complaint of Suti Police Station Case
No. 585 of 2010, dated 18th September, 2010 under Sections 384/411/34 of the
Indian Penal Code the petitioners came to know that one Jahir Ahmed son of late
Ashan Ali Mondal of village and P.S. Jalangi made a written complaint at 19.05
hours against the petitioners. The petitioners have stated that the complainant
lodged a false complaint against the Customs officials who were on duty at the
relevant point of time on the basis of the order of their superior authority. The
false complaint was lodged to cover up the crime committed by the complainant
with the help of police personnel of Suti Police Station.
8. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the allegations con-
tained in the said FIR are baseless/false and it was purposely done.
9. Suti Police Station Case No. 585 of 2010, dated 18-9-2010 under Sec-
tions 384/311/34 of the Indian Penal Code was started on the basis of the FIR
lodged by one Jahir Ahamed son of late Ashan Ali Mondal. It was alleged in the
said FIR that on 18-9-2010 the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five thousand) from his A/c No. 1630101000-65919,
of his Axis Bank Account, Berhampur by Cheque No. 203466 and also withdrew
a sum of Rs. 28,800/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred) by an-
other cheque and also took Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) from his house
and kept the entire amount of Rs. 2,03,800/- in a nylon bag. He was going from
Berhampur to hand over the said amount to Sri Arun Kumar Jain, the owner of
Sangita Trading Company by his car being registration No.WB-58L-9949 accom-
panied by Titu Molita, Masood Mollah, Rezaul Dafadar. At about 1 p.m. when
their car was crossing the Bridge then one vehicle being registration No. WB 58
F/5278 blocked their car. At the relevant point of time one jeep being No. WB-
02F/6416 came behind the vehicle of the de facto complainant. Eight persons
came down from those two vehicles. Out of them two persons forcibly opened
the door of the vehicle of the complainant and snatched away the bag of the
complainant containing the said amount. It was alleged by the complainant that
those persons forcibly snatched away their mobile phones so that they could not
talk with others. They were detained in the car for about one hour. Those persons
told the complainant that they were the customs officials and they had authority
to seize the money and to arrest them. The complainant tried to explain that he
collected the money from the bank for the purpose of his business, but those per-
sons did not pay heed on his request. Thereafter another vehicle being No. WB
58K/8736 reached at that place. Those persons also stopped that vehicle and dis-
closed their identity as the officials of Customs. There was an altercation in be-
tween the persons of that vehicle and the persons who claimed themselves to be
the officials of the Customs. At that time one police vehicle came at the spot
when the police personnel wanted to know the identity of the persons who
stopped the vehicle of the complainant. Those persons described themselves to
be the official of the Customs and asked the police officials to leave that place.
The police personnel asked those persons who described themselves to be the
officials of the customs to show their identity and also the document showing the
seizure of the amount from the possession of the de facto complainant. The offi-
cials of the Customs could not show the same on the request of the police per-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  126