9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1986 (4) TMI 342 - SC - Customsthe consequences of difference between public notices and statutory Orders - banning of beef tallow by Public Notice would not amount to any contravention of the order passed under the Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Allegations of conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Contravention of Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. 4. Validity and use of import licences. 5. The role of the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the Complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The High Court of Delhi, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed the complaint and the summoning order, dismissing the complaint against the accused. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint at this stage. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 482 should be used sparingly and only when no prima facie case is made out from the allegations in the complaint. 2. Allegations of Conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code The complaint alleged that the accused entered into a conspiracy to contravene the provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court observed no overt act by the accused, but the Supreme Court emphasized that conspiracy could be inferred from the conduct and the agreement among the accused. The court stated that the existence of a conspiracy and the involvement of the accused should be investigated during the trial. 3. Contravention of Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 The complaint alleged that the accused contravened Section 5 of the Act by importing beef tallow, which was a canalized item. The Supreme Court highlighted that the contravention of a condition of a licence or any order made under the Act is a penal offence. The High Court had noted that the import of beef tallow was prohibited and that the accused attempted to import it by transferring the licence. The Supreme Court emphasized that these allegations warranted a trial to determine their veracity. 4. Validity and Use of Import Licences The complaint detailed the issuance and use of import licences, including an imprest licence for importing 'diamonds unset and uncut' and the subsequent use of these licences for importing beef tallow. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had considered a subsequent investigation report by the CBI, which suggested that the allegations might not be substantiated. However, the Supreme Court held that the validity and use of the import licences should be examined during the trial, not at the stage of quashing the complaint. 5. The Role of the High Court in Quashing Criminal Proceedings The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court should not quash criminal proceedings if a prima facie case is made out from the allegations in the complaint. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for exceeding its jurisdiction by quashing the complaint based on subsequent investigation reports and the non-inclusion of certain parties in the conspiracy. The Supreme Court emphasized that the truth of the allegations should be determined during the trial. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and judgment quashing the proceedings. The Supreme Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the charges and that the allegations should be investigated during the trial. The accused would have the opportunity to prove their innocence in accordance with the law.
|
