9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Quashing of a complaint alleging multiple offenses against officials of the Excise and Customs Department based on the protection provided u/s 108 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
Details of the Judgment: 1. The complaint alleged that the accused officials raided a jewellery shop and a cloth shop, demanding a bribe and attempting dacoity. The High Court quashed the complaint citing protection u/s 108 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, for actions done in good faith under the Act. 2. The appellant argued that the incident in the cloth shop was a serious offense, amounting to attempted murder, but the Supreme Court found no valid excuse for interference under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India after reviewing the material documents and hearing both parties. 3. It was established that the appellant and his son were licensed goldsmiths, and during the incident, injuries were sustained by both the Customs party and the appellant's son. The Court concluded that the Customs party's actions were not for dacoity but to investigate any illegal activities, given the presence of licensed individuals. 4. While the Court acknowledged the need for further evidence to conclusively determine the truth of the complaint, it upheld the quashing order to respect the protection u/s 108 of the Gold (Control) Act, emphasizing that pursuing such cases to conviction or acquittal would undermine the statutory provision. 5. The appeal was dismissed, with a clarification that the judgment should not influence a pending cross case against the appellant by the Customs authorities.
|
