9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the quashing of proceedings, investigation, and inquiry conducted by the respondents, as well as the issuance of summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The argument revolves around the necessity of sanction from a competent Magistrate for the enforcement of the power of arrest under the Act and the bailable nature of offenses under the Act. Quashing of Proceedings: The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court seeking to quash the proceedings, investigation, and inquiry conducted by the respondents, along with the issuance of summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The argument was made that the power of arrest under the Act cannot be enforced without sanction from a competent Magistrate. However, the Court found that there was no document or information available to show that the respondents intended to act under Section 104 of the Act. As the respondents were investigating proceedings related to the import of prohibited foods and had called upon the petitioner to produce documents under Section 108 of the Act, the arguments based on Section 104 were deemed untenable. Power of Arrest and Summons under the Act: The argument raised by the petitioner's counsel was based on Section 104 of the Act, which confers the power of arrest upon customs officers empowered by the Commissioner of Customs. The respondents, through their counsel, clarified that they had only called upon the petitioner by issuing summons under Section 108 of the Act. The Court noted that since the respondents were only investigating under Section 108, the arguments raised based on Section 104 were found to be misconceived and aimed at misleading the Court. Nature of Offenses and Anticipatory Bail: The argument regarding the bailable nature of the offense was not disputed by the respondents' counsel. It was acknowledged that the offense was bailable, yet the petitioner had obtained an order from the Court to prevent arrest, even though anticipatory bail is not maintainable for bailable offenses. The Court highlighted that the respondents were solely investigating under Section 108 of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition as it found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The judgment clarified the basis for invoking the writ jurisdiction and emphasized the specific sections of the Customs Act, 1962 under which the respondents were conducting their investigation and issuing summons.
|
