1983 (12) TMI 315 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Prima facie case for framing charges under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act.
2. Admissibility of statements made by the petitioners under Section 107/108 of the Customs Act.
3. Application of Sections 245 and 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report.
4. Maintainability of petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC after dismissal of revision petitions under Section 397(3).
5. Justification for framing charges based on the evidence on record.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Prima Facie Case for Framing Charges under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act:

The petitioners challenged the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the dismissal of their revision petitions by the Additional Sessions Judge, which held that there was a prima facie case for framing charges under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The court found that the evidence, including the recovery of foreign goods and the statements made by the petitioners, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The court noted that the petitioners admitted to acquiring and dealing with foreign goods without proper authorization or payment of duty, thereby justifying the framing of charges.

2. Admissibility of Statements Made by the Petitioners under Section 107/108 of the Customs Act:

The petitioners argued that their statements were not admissible as they were not voluntary and were made while in custody. The court, however, held that the statements were prima facie voluntary, as they were detailed and contained specific information about the petitioners' activities. The court also noted that the petitioners were not "accused persons" within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act when the statements were made, as no formal accusation had been filed at that time. The court rejected the contention that the statements were involuntary, noting that the petitioners could present evidence to rebut this at trial.

3. Application of Sections 245 and 246 of the CrPC in Cases Instituted Otherwise than on a Police Report:

The petitioners contended that the Additional Sessions Judge erroneously applied the principles from Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC, which are relevant to cases instituted on a police report, instead of Sections 245 and 246, which apply to cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. The court clarified that while the language and context of these sections differ, the test for framing charges under Section 246 is whether there is "ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence." The court concluded that the evidence on record, including the petitioners' statements and the recovery of goods, justified the framing of charges under Section 246.

4. Maintainability of Petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC after Dismissal of Revision Petitions under Section 397(3):

The maintainability of the petitions under Section 482 was challenged on the grounds that a second revision was barred under Section 397(3) of the CrPC. The court acknowledged that while Section 397(3) bars a second revision, the inherent powers under Section 482 could still be exercised in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. The court emphasized that such powers should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where there is a clear abuse of the process of the court.

5. Justification for Framing Charges Based on the Evidence on Record:

The court examined whether the evidence on record, if unrebutted, would warrant the conviction of the petitioners. The court found that the recovery of foreign goods and the detailed admissions made by the petitioners in their statements provided sufficient material to justify the framing of charges. The court noted that the petitioners' statements indicated their involvement in smuggling activities and their knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The court also addressed the contention that the seized goods were not notified goods, concluding that cameras and sarees were notified goods according to the Customs Manual.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the evidence on record justified the framing of charges under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and decide the matter in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.

← Previous Next →