2010 (10) TMI 366 - HC - Customs

Search - Fake Indian currency notes of denomination ₹ 1000/- and ₹ 500/- having total value of RS. 14,97,000/- were found in his possession - Since the case was to be filed by the customs department under Section 135 of the Customs Act, a sanction was obtained for prosecution of the accused under the Customs Act and a complaint was filed before the learned ACMM for prosecution of the accused for smuggling into India fake Indian currency notes - There is no doubt that for taking cognizance of an offence sanction under Customs Act obtaining of sanction was necessary, but the sanction had been granted by the competent authority in this case - In the teeth of facts of recovery of large amount of fake currency notes placed before the ACMM, it is strange that the ACMM did not discuss a single fact of possession of the fake currency by the accused A statement made by the accused under Section 108, unless it is shown that it was not voluntary statement, is an admissible piece of evidence against the accused and cannot be rejected lightly - The accused is liable to be charged for offences if any, committed under the Customs Act and also under Section 489-C of IPC

Summary

Issues:
Assailing of order discharging the accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act based on the validity of sanction and evidence presented before the ACMM.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order discharging the accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act, where fake Indian currency notes were found in possession of the accused. The Customs Department obtained a sanction for prosecution and filed a complaint before the ACMM. Witnesses, including Intelligence Officer, Customs Superintendent, and Assistant Nodal Officer, testified during pre-charge evidence, proving the recovery of fake currency notes and other seized materials. The ACMM discharged the accused without discussing the evidence, emphasizing the need for a valid sanction for conviction.

The High Court noted that while a valid sanction was necessary for taking cognizance of the offence, the competent authority had granted sanction in this case. The ACMM's focus on the lack of application of mind by the sanctioning authority and absence of panch witnesses was deemed incorrect. The Court criticized the ACMM for disregarding the evidence of possession of fake currency by the accused and highlighted the duty of the criminal court to dispense justice to society and the nation.

Moreover, the Court found the ACMM's reasoning flawed as even without a Customs Act sanction, the evidence disclosed an offence under Section 489-C IPC. The ACMM's failure to consider this alternative charge showcased a lack of legal awareness. The Court referenced legal precedents emphasizing that the grant of sanction is an administrative act to protect the innocent, not a shield for the guilty. The ACMM's failure to apply legal principles regarding sanction and the value of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act was deemed a significant error.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the ACMM's order, directing the accused to be charged for offences under the Customs Act and Section 489-C of IPC. The ACMM was instructed to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law, highlighting the importance of legal principles and proper application of evidence in criminal proceedings.