Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by Yoginder Kumar Gupta Charted Accountant (petitioner), for quashing complaint No. 3-T titled "Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar v. Shri P.C. Aggarwal and others" pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, under Sections 120-B/420/471/468, IPC read with Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 and also for quashing the summoning order dated 30.6.1987 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Andhra Oil & Fertilizers Co., Patamata, Vijayawada, was a partnership concern of 19 partners. The said firm was carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of rice bran etc. It was an export house bearing export house certificate dated 9.11.1982 which was valid upto 30.6.1984. The partners of the said firm authorised Majety Prahalad Rao accused on behalf of the firm to appoint General Power of Attorney holder/special Power of Attorney holders delegating them any such powers and authorities as mentioned in the General Power of Attorney. Consequently, Majety Prahalad Rao gave a General Power of Attorney on 15.11.1983 in the name of Shri Vinod Agarwal alias Vinod Kumar Kedia of New Delhi and he was empowered to do all or any of the acts as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the complaint. Mr. P.C. Agarwal was the kingpin of the conspiracy. He had rented a flat at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, in his name and Vinod Kumar Kedia was his employee. 3. It was averred that Mr. P.C. Agarwal visited Jalandhar City and met Miss Veena Gupta. One room was taken on rent by him at Sanatam Dharam Mandir, Sodal Road, Preet Nagar, Jalandhar City and a board of M/s Andhra Oil and Fertilizers Co. was displayed on it. Miss Veena Gupta accused was incharge of M/s Andhra Oil and Fertilizers Co., Sanatam Dharam Mandir Preet Nagar, Jalandhar City (hereinafter referred to as `the company). She further employed Miss Veena Mahendru for receiving letters of the said company. 4. It was next averred that Vinod Kumar Kedia submitted an application dated 30.11.1983 to the Secretary, AEPC Sahyog Building Andhra Oil and Fertilizers Co. Jalandhar City with head office at Patamata Vijayawada and membership No. AEPC/Mom/6231 MER/A dated 14.12.1983 was issued in the name of the said firm. 4. It was next averred that Vinod Kumar Kedia submitted an application dated 30.11.1983 to the Secretary, AEPC Sahyog Building Andhra Oil and Fertilizers Co. Jalandhar City with head office at Patamata Vijayawada and membership No. AEPC/Mom/6231 MER/A dated 14.12.1983 was issued in the name of the said firm. It was next averred that covering letter dated 19.5.1984 was addressed to the office of Deputy CCI&E, Amritsar for the grant of advance licence for the import of polyester fabrics 100% under the signatures of Vinod Kumar accused constituted Attorney General of M/s Andhra Oil and Fertilizers Co. and its copy was sent to the office of CCI&E (Advance Licensing Section), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. The aforesaid application was accompanied by export order dated 27.4.1984 of M/s Yyo Tex Inc. 35 Easter Brooke Avenue, 608, Willewfer Apartments, Toronto Ontariao (Canada) for export of 100% polyester Ladies Dresses. On investigation through, INTERPOL, it was revealed that the aforesaid firm did not exist at the above address in Canada. 5. It was next averred that petitioner Yoginder Kumar Gupta had issued charted accountant certificate dated 1.5.1984 wherein he has certified that the Company had exported decilel rice bran from Head Office and vide letter dated 13.2.1984 he had stated that the aforesaid firm had exported garments for the years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83. One V. Kumar Proprietor of M/s Prakash Garments, at Bahadhurgarh had addressed a letter to the Deputy CCI&E, Amritsar, stating that Proprietor of the said firm shall fabricate the ladies dresses as per requirements of export order dated 27.4.1984 of M/s. Juyo Tex. Inc. The goods which were imported were not taken to Bahadhurgarh but the same were disposed of at the New Delhi. The Company did certain acts of omission and commission and thus it is clear that the accused along with the petitioner had criminally conspired during the year 1983 to 1985 at Jalandhar and other places and they obtained advance import licence for CIF value of Rs. 15,92,328,00 for the import of 100% polyester fabrics fraudulently and dishonestly from the office of Deputy CCI&E Amritsar, and Mr. P.C. Agarwal was the kingpin of the said conspiracy while petitioner Yoginder Kumar Gupta gave bogus charter accountant certificate to the effect that the said company had exported the garments. With these allegations a complaint was filed by the Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi. 6. P.C. Agarwal was the kingpin of the said conspiracy while petitioner Yoginder Kumar Gupta gave bogus charter accountant certificate to the effect that the said company had exported the garments. With these allegations a complaint was filed by the Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi. 6. The respondent filed the reply dated 18.11.1999. 7. I have heard Shri Dinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the file. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner could not legally be arrayed as an accused in the case simply because he had issued the charted accountant certificates in the discharge of his professional duties, certifying the figures of export material as per books shown to him and examined by him. Certainly he can be legally arrayed as an accused as the allegation of the prosecution is that he had issued bogus certificates dated 13.2.1984 and 1.5.1984 and infact the firm had not exported any material. 9. The certificate Annexure P-1 dated 13.2.1984 issued by the petitioner shows that he had certified that the company had exported garments of the amount mentioned therein during the financial years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 respectively. He had issued another certificate Annexure P2 dated 1.5.1984 to the effect that M/s Andhra Pradesh Oil and Fertilizers Co. had exported garments of the value mentioned therein during the financial year 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 respectively. He had issued another certificate Annexure P3 dated 1.5.1984 to the effect that M/s Andhra Oils & Fertilizers Co. Jalandhar City had exported from their head office Deoiled rice of the amount mentioned therein during the financial years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 respectively. It is mentioned in paragraph 26 of the complaint that the Officer of the D.R.I. conducted raids at the residence of Mr. P.C. Aggarwal accused and other firms and found that M/s Prakash Garments Bahadhurgarh, M/s Skylab International, New Delhi, M/s Star Enterprises Chittranjan Park and M/s Andhra Oil and Fertilizers Co. Jalandhar and Vijaywada, were bogus companies and Mr. P.C. Aggarwal was the kingpin of the conspiracy. 10. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, had passed order Annexure P-5 dated 30.6.1987, summoning the petitioner and other accused, which reads as under :- "Complaint presented by Shri S.K. Bangar, PP for CBI. Jalandhar and Vijaywada, were bogus companies and Mr. P.C. Aggarwal was the kingpin of the conspiracy. 10. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, had passed order Annexure P-5 dated 30.6.1987, summoning the petitioner and other accused, which reads as under :- "Complaint presented by Shri S.K. Bangar, PP for CBI. Perused the complaint and document and case under Section 120-B read with Sections 420/468/471, IPC and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Act, 1947 is made out against all the accused. To be summoned for 15.10.1987." 11. Therefore, he had passed the order after perusing the complaint and other documents. Annexure P-6 is the copy of the Gazette of India which shows that vide gazette notification dated 1.12.1965, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was authorised to file a complaint in respect of any offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act, 1947. Then there is another notification Annexure P-6 dated 29.2.1988. According to this notification also the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has been authorised to file the complaint. Annexure P-7 is the notice issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports dated 11.1.196 to M/s Andhra Oils & Fertilizers Company stating that the firm had obtained advance licence for exporting goods against a firm in Canada styled as M/s Jyo Tex. Inc. which was non-existent. It is to be seen from the evidence to be led as to whether the petitioner was actually a party to the conspiracy but prima-facie, the issuance of bogus certificate shows that he was a party to the conspiracy in cheating and obtaining advance import licence fraudulently and dishonestly from the office of Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar. If the petitioner had not issued the bogus charted accountant certificates, then the import licence would not have been issued. It is true that Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was authorised to file the complaint under Section 5 of the Act but even a public servant was also authorised to file the complaint under certain Section of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was authorised to file the complaint under Section 5 of the Act but even a public servant was also authorised to file the complaint under certain Section of the Indian Penal Code. The authority Roshan Lal Aggarwal v. Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, 1995(3) RCR 521 of the Karnataka High Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case the notification issued by the State Government must be with respect to the trial of cases under the Imports and Exports Act. Since that Court was constituted as a special Court for economic offences only, so he was not authorised to try offences under Indian Penal Code. But in the present case there is no such notification that he was authorised only to try the economic offences. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the order of summoning passed by the Magistrate did not reflect application of his mind and as such the summoning order is bad. For this contention, he has placed reliance on an authority of the Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. M/s. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 761 which supported the contention of counsel for the petitioner in paragraph `E at page 762. But the above mentioned authority is not applicable to the facts of the presence case because the summoning order dated 30.6.1987 (Annexure P-5) shows that he had applied his mind and had perused the complaint as well as the documents placed on the file and then had passed the summoning order. 13. Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the complaint is pending for the last 10 years and it is an abuses of the process of Court which has caused miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. Again the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. The complaint could not proceed for one reason or the other as certain revision petitions were filed and even one of the accused Mr. P.C. Aggarwal approached the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that once the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the same matter, then criminal complaint cannot be filed. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. These are two different forums. P.C. Aggarwal approached the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that once the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the same matter, then criminal complaint cannot be filed. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. These are two different forums. If from the facts of the case criminal offence is made out, then there is no bar for trial of the petitioner. In the present case, there is prima facie case that the petitioner was a party to the conspiracy for issuing bogus charted accountant certificates on which advance export licence was obtained, so certainly he can be tried for the same. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the documents collected by the C.B.I. during investigation cannot be relied upon by the trial Court in passing the summoning order. Again in my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. Certainly those documents can be relied upon while passing the summoning order. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that some of the accused namely Naresh Dalal, Prem Shankar Sharma, P.C. Aggarwal and V.K. Gupta had confessed their guilt before the trial Court and as such, they admitted that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy and floated bogus firm for the Exports and Imports of goods which were non-existent. Since the petitioner had issued bogus certificates, certainly the case is to be tried against him and the proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.