9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1259 - HC - CustomsIssuance of summons - whether from the facts and circumstances, it could be inferred that the Court below has passed the impugned order summoning the petitioners without taking into consideration the material as well as the provisions of the statute - HELD THAT - As per Section 135(1)(a) of the Act, prosecution can be initiated if the market price of the goods exceeds Rs.1 Crore. It is an admitted fact that in the order dated 4th August 2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), collective value of all the goods was taken to be Rs.77,16,288/- and it is further admitted that no appeal was preferred against the said order, which therefore, attained finality. It may be observed that in the present case there is nothing to show that the petitioners made any false declaration or prepared false documents and, therefore, he is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 132 of the Act. In this case, moreover the complaint is barred by limitation inasmuch as per the provisions of Section 132 of the Act, which existed at the relevant time the punishment which could have been imposed for violating Section 132 of the Act could have extended for a period for a period of six months or with fine or with both and limitation in this case as provided under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is only 1 year. The learned Courts below did not consider that at the stage of Section 200 of Cr. P.C., the exemption can only be given to a public servant who has filed a case in his official capacity, but such exemption is not available with the other witnesses. In the present case, it was the duty of respondent no.2 to prove its case against the petitioners and show sufficient evidence on record, however, the respondent no. 1 in the present case did not examine even the panch witnesses to prove its case. Therefore, the Court below has summoned the petitioner without any material on record for prima facie satisfaction. The impugned order, passed in the instant case, is bad in law. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of prosecution under Section 132 of the Customs Act. 2. Validity of prosecution under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. 3. Territorial jurisdiction of the learned CMM. 4. Validity of the sanction for prosecution. 5. Limitation period for filing the complaint. 6. Sufficiency of evidence for summoning the accused. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Prosecution under Section 132 of the Customs Act: The petitioners argued that no false declaration or document was made, signed, or used by them knowingly, which is a prerequisite for prosecution under Section 132 of the Act. The court found that there was no evidence showing that the petitioners made any false declaration or prepared false documents. Therefore, they were not liable to be prosecuted under Section 132. 2. Validity of Prosecution under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act: The petitioners contended that the market value of the goods was less than Rs.1 Crore, which is a requirement for prosecution under Section 135(1)(a). The court noted that the collective value of the goods was determined to be Rs.77,16,288/- by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and that this order had attained finality as no appeal was filed against it. Therefore, prosecution under Section 135(1)(a) was not valid. 3. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Learned CMM: The petitioners argued that the learned CMM did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The court found that the notification of the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court conferred jurisdiction to the criminal courts at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, for violations of the Customs Act. Therefore, the learned CMM had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 4. Validity of the Sanction for Prosecution: The petitioners challenged the validity of the sanction for prosecution, arguing that it was a result of non-application of mind and was mechanical in nature. The court agreed, finding that the sanction by the Additional Director, DRI, was invalid and void-ab-initio as it did not specify the basis on which the decision to prosecute was made. 5. Limitation Period for Filing the Complaint: The petitioners contended that the complaint was barred by limitation. The court noted that the punishment for violating Section 132 could extend to six months, and the limitation period as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is one year. Since the incident occurred in 2009 and the complaint was filed in 2013, the court found that the complaint was indeed barred by limitation. 6. Sufficiency of Evidence for Summoning the Accused: The court observed that the learned CMM dispensed with the examination of the complainant and other witnesses, which was not appropriate. It was the duty of the respondent to prove its case against the petitioners with sufficient evidence. The court found that the summoning order was issued without any material on record for prima facie satisfaction. Conclusion: The court concluded that the impugned orders summoning the petitioners and dismissing the criminal revision were bad in law. The summoning order dated 5th March 2014 and the order dated 29th July 2016 were set aside. Consequently, the criminal complaint bearing CC No.75/1/2013 filed under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed. The petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. The judgment was ordered to be uploaded on the website forthwith.
|
