2007 (7) TMI 700 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Quashing of Criminal Case Nos. 2 & 1 of 2007.
2. Constitutionality of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Issuance of non-bailable warrants by the Metropolitan Magistrate.
4. Compliance with Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Case Nos. 2 & 1 of 2007:

The petitioners sought to quash Criminal Case Nos. 2 & 1 of 2007 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. They argued that no prima facie case under Sections 174 & 175 of IPC was made out against them, as they had already provided the necessary documents and expressed their willingness to appear before the Ludhiana DIR office due to health issues. The court found that the petitioners had repeatedly failed to comply with the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, thus justifying the initiation of criminal cases and the issuance of process by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. Constitutionality of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:

The petitioners challenged Section 108 of the Customs Act on the grounds that it violated Articles 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution of India. They argued that the provision allowed for arbitrary summoning of individuals residing far away without reimbursement for travel expenses, unlike similar provisions in the Cr.P.C. The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 108, emphasizing that it aimed to collect information related to customs violations and was essential for safeguarding revenue. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments affirming that the provision did not violate constitutional protections and was necessary for effective customs enforcement.

3. Issuance of Non-bailable Warrants by the Metropolitan Magistrate:

The petitioners contended that the Metropolitan Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants without first issuing bailable warrants, which was contrary to the Cr.P.C. The court noted that the petitioners had repeatedly failed to appear despite multiple summons and assurances. The Metropolitan Magistrate had issued the non-bailable warrants only after recording valid reasons and observing the petitioners' non-compliance. The court found the issuance of non-bailable warrants justified under the circumstances.

4. Compliance with Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.):

The petitioners argued that the Metropolitan Magistrate did not comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., which necessitates an inquiry or investigation before issuing process against an accused residing outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The court observed that the complaints detailed the petitioners' non-compliance with summonses, providing sufficient grounds for proceeding without further inquiry. The court concluded that the Magistrate's actions were in line with the legislative intent to prevent harassment of innocent persons and that the complaints themselves disclosed a prima facie case.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the constitutionality of Section 108 of the Customs Act and finding no procedural violations in the issuance of non-bailable warrants or the compliance with Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners' repeated non-compliance with summonses and the valid reasons recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate justified the actions taken against them.