9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Stay of departmental proceedings under the Customs Act pending the disposal of a criminal case. 2. Allegation of testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 3. Protection under Section 132 of the Evidence Act for witnesses in other proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioners sought a stay on the departmental proceedings under the Customs Act until the criminal case against them was resolved. They argued that being compelled to disclose their defense prematurely could prejudice their criminal case and violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court precedent in T.G. Gaokar v. R.N. Shukla was cited, emphasizing the discretion of Customs Authorities to proceed with proceedings under the Customs Act despite pending criminal trials. The court noted that the petitioners were not accused in the Customs proceedings and that the question of testimonial compulsion did not arise until they were summoned as witnesses. 2. The court referenced the Supreme Court case to clarify that entering the witness box voluntarily to support one's defense does not constitute testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The protection under Article 20(3) applies when a person is compelled by another authority to be a witness against themselves. The judgment highlighted that the petitioners had not been called upon to be witnesses against themselves in the Customs proceedings, and the question of invoking Article 20(3) did not arise until they were summoned as witnesses. 3. The court examined the situation where a person summoned as a witness in Customs proceedings may give incriminating answers. It referred to Section 132 of the Evidence Act, which allows witnesses in such proceedings to be compelled to answer relevant questions but provides protection against the use of such answers in criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that the protection under Section 132 extends to cases where an accused in a criminal trial is a witness in other proceedings. It noted that the Customs Counsel assured that statements made in the Customs proceedings would not be used in the criminal case, further strengthening the protection provided by the proviso to Section 132. 4. The court concluded that the Customs Authorities' decision not to stay the proceedings was not vitiated by any erroneous exercise of discretion. It considered the complexity of the issues, the number of accused, and the potential prejudice to the Department due to delays in finalizing the criminal case. The court found no reason to hold that there was an incorrect exercise of discretion and dismissed the Special Civil Applications, with no costs awarded. This judgment clarifies the distinction between departmental proceedings under the Customs Act and criminal proceedings, emphasizing the protection afforded to witnesses under Section 132 of the Evidence Act when giving evidence in one proceeding that may incriminate them in another.
|
