2011 (9) TMI 785 - HC - Customs

Search and seizure - The officials were merely acting in discharge of their official duties. The goods exported by the complainant were seized and it was found that the value of the goods had not been properly disclosed by the complainant - In the present case, no money has been paid by the complainant to the accused. Only an oral allegation has been levelled against the official John Joseph that a demand of ₹ 25,00,000/- had been made by him - . One of the petitions has been filed by Union of India seeking quashing of the complaint on behalf of its official and one petition has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint by the officials themselves - In case the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, then in every case of raid or seizure it would be difficult for an official to perform his duty fearlessly - Petitions are allowed

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of criminal complaint under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against officials for acting in discharge of their official duties.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought the quashing of a criminal complaint under Sections 109, 112, 383, 384, 499, 500, 501, 506 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioners argued that the officials were merely performing their official duties when the goods exported by the complainant were seized due to undervaluation. The complainant had overvalued goods to benefit from the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB). The detention order under the COFEPOSA was set aside, and officials could not be summoned for offenses under IPC sections 384/500. The officials were protected under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, which shields them from legal proceedings for acts done in good faith under the Act.

The respondents claimed that officials defamed the complainant by publishing a news item and demanded a sum of money to prevent the detention order. However, the complainant refused to pay, and the detention order was published in a newspaper. Despite these allegations, the court found that the officials were acting in the discharge of their duties and did not engage in extortion or defamation. The court noted that the allegations against the officials were made to pressurize them and that no money was paid by the complainant to the accused.

The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, concluded that the petitions deserved to be allowed. It referred to a press note dated 30-8-2000, highlighting the detention order issued under the COFEPOSA against the complainant. The court emphasized that the officials acted in good faith and upheld the overvaluation of goods by the complainant. It found that continuing criminal proceedings against the officials would be an abuse of the legal process, as they were performing their duties diligently. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions and quashed the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners under various sections of the IPC.