9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of order summoning petitioner for offences under Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act based on complaint of Air Customs Officer. Analysis: The judgment by M.K. Chawla, J., pertains to a petition seeking to quash an order summoning the petitioner for offences under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The complaint was filed by an Air Customs Officer based on the discovery of 200 gold biscuits in a consignment imported by Mohd. Ali Abdi, Second Secretary of Somalia Embassy. The petitioner was alleged to be knowingly involved in fraudulent evasion of prohibitions imposed on the seized gold. The Magistrate found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner, leading to the revision petition. The petitioner's counsel argued that the evidence and statements in the complaint did not establish the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences. They contended that the witnesses' statements were unreliable as they were accomplices and the alleged confession was inadmissible. The petitioner's role as an indenting agent or involvement in the import of the goods was not proven. The prosecution's failure to examine Bank of Tokyo authorities or provide legal evidence was highlighted, citing precedents supporting the quashing of summoning orders. In contrast, the department's counsel argued that the evidence presented was adequate to proceed against the accused. Statements by the importer and other individuals implicated the petitioner as the indenting agent who placed orders for the imported goods. The petitioner was alleged to have received a cheque for payment and represented a Hong Kong company involved in the importation of the goods where the gold was found. The judgment emphasized that at the stage of summoning, the court should not delve into the merits of the case but assess if there are sufficient grounds to proceed. Drawing parallels with previous judgments, including Khecheru Singh v. State of U.P., the court upheld the Magistrate's decision to summon the accused based on prima facie evidence. The court dismissed the petition, stating that its observations would not impact the trial court proceedings. In conclusion, the court found no merit in quashing the summoning order, emphasizing the need to respect the Magistrate's decision at this stage of the legal process. The judgment underscored the importance of not interfering in cases where there is prima facie evidence of an offence, reiterating the principle established in State of U.P. v. Manmohan and Others. The court's decision to dismiss the petition was based on the existing evidence and the procedural stage of the case, with a clear directive that its observations would not influence the trial court's proceedings.
|
