2008 (2) TMI 912 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the legal judgment are the validity of the order of sanction passed by the Collector of Customs and the consideration of evidence related to the grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Validity of Order of Sanction:
The judgment revolves around the validity of the order of sanction passed by the Collector of Customs for prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The provision under Section 137 of the Act mandates that no court can take cognizance of certain offenses without the previous sanction of the Commissioner of Customs. The order of sanction in this case was found to be lacking as it did not demonstrate that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind on the documents presented before him. The absence of examination of the sanctioning authority as a witness led to a lack of clarity on how the decision to grant sanction was made based on the evidence. The High Court's judgment did not address the crucial aspect of a valid order of sanction, which was a significant flaw in the legal process. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, emphasizing the necessity of a valid order of sanction for prosecution under the Customs Act.

Consideration of Evidence for Sanction:
The legal proceedings also involved a detailed consideration of the evidence related to the grant of sanction for prosecution under the Customs Act. The Trial Court had convicted all accused individuals, but the Sessions Judge later acquitted them due to issues with the sanctioning process. The High Court, in its subsequent judgment, reversed the acquittal and convicted accused Nos. 1 & 2 without affording them the opportunity to present their case through their counsel. This lack of due process raised concerns about the fairness of the trial. The Supreme Court intervened, highlighting the importance of a thorough examination of evidence and proper legal procedures in criminal cases. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and adherence to legal standards in criminal proceedings.