1981 (9) TMI 132 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution in the context of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Admissibility of statements recorded under the Customs Act.
3. Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Crl. P.C.).
4. Considerations for granting anticipatory bail in cases involving non-bailable offences.
5. The interplay between Section 438 Crl. P.C. and Rule 184 of the Rules.
6. Conditions and limitations for granting anticipatory bail.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution in the context of the Customs Act, 1962:
The judgment begins by addressing the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically Sections 106A to 110, and their relationship with Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against testimonial compulsion. It is noted that Article 20 is not applicable to the procedures adopted by an investigating officer under the Customs Act. The court references the Supreme Court's decisions which held that statements given voluntarily by the accused, leading to the seizure of contraband articles, are admissible in evidence. The court emphasizes that the principles of testimonial compulsion do not extend to the Customs Act's procedural framework.

2. Admissibility of Statements Recorded under the Customs Act:
The court discusses the admissibility of statements recorded from individuals accused of contravening the Customs Act. It is noted that such statements, if given voluntarily, are admissible in evidence. The court highlights that a copy of the statement is provided to the accused, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal procedures.

3. Grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Crl. P.C.):
The primary issue for consideration is whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. The court examines precedents, including the Supreme Court's observations in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand Alias Baliay, and Balchand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which outline the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail. The court notes that Section 438 is an extraordinary remedy, to be used judiciously and in special cases.

4. Considerations for Granting Anticipatory Bail in Cases Involving Non-Bailable Offences:
The court references several judgments, including Mahanthagauda v. State of Karnataka and Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab, to outline the considerations for granting anticipatory bail. It is emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely and must be reserved for cases where the charge is frivolous or the accusation stems from mala fide motives. The court must be satisfied that the allegations are false or groundless before granting anticipatory bail.

5. The Interplay Between Section 438 Crl. P.C. and Rule 184 of the Rules:
The court discusses the relationship between Section 438 of the Code and Rule 184 of the Rules, noting that there is no real inconsistency between the two. Rule 184 is supplemental to Section 438 and provides guidelines for granting anticipatory bail in specific cases. The court emphasizes that the conditions mentioned in Rule 184 must be impliedly imported into Section 438 to ensure a harmonious interpretation that protects individual liberty while allowing legitimate investigative processes.

6. Conditions and Limitations for Granting Anticipatory Bail:
The court examines the conditions and limitations for granting anticipatory bail, as outlined in various judgments. It is noted that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a blanket fashion and must be based on specific accusations. The court must independently verify the prima facie falsity of the charge and the mala fides of the accusation. The court also highlights that anticipatory bail is not a substitute for investigation in custody and should not impede legitimate investigative processes.

Conclusion:
After careful consideration of the submissions and the legal principles involved, the court concludes that the petitioners can be enlarged on bail, subject to stringent conditions. The petitioners are required to execute a bond for Rs. 5000 each with two sureties and report daily to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Tuticorin, until the filing of the complaint. The order is passed accordingly, balancing the need to protect individual liberty with the requirements of the investigative process.