9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the bail order in Crl. M.P. No. 6945/88. 2. Legality of the arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act. 3. Power of the Magistrate to remand a person arrested under the Customs Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Bail Order in Crl. M.P. No. 6945/88: Crl. M.P. No. 11117 of 1988 was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, seeking to set aside the order of the Court of Sessions, Madras, which released the respondent on bail. The grounds for this petition included the Sessions Court's failure to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the stage of investigation, and the interests of society. The petitioner argued that the respondent's release would hamper a free and fair investigation due to his influential status and prior involvement in smuggling activities. However, during the proceedings, the petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the respondent's detention under the COFEPOSA Act. 2. Legality of the Arrest Under Section 104 of the Customs Act: Crl. M.P. No. 254 of 1989 was filed to call for records relating to the arrest and to quash the order of arrest made by the respondent. The petitioner contended that the arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act, based on a statement obtained under Section 108 of the said Act, was illegal. The petitioner argued that such statements were inadmissible in proceedings under the Customs Act or the COFEPOSA Act. However, the court did not delve into the legality of the arrest in detail, as the issue was pending before a Division Bench in a related COFEPOSA detention case. 3. Power of the Magistrate to Remand a Person Arrested Under the Customs Act: Crl. M.P. No. 407 of 1989 was filed to call for records relating to the medical treatment of the petitioner and two others to decide the legality of the arrest. The primary issue considered was whether a Magistrate has the power to remand a person arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act. The court examined various judicial precedents and statutory provisions, including Section 104 of the Customs Act and Section 167 Cr.P.C. The court observed that Section 104(1) and (2) of the Customs Act virtually take the place of Section 167(1) Cr.P.C., and the power of remand under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. applies to persons arrested under the Customs Act. The court noted that the Customs Officer has the power to release an arrested person on bail, which implies the power to refuse bail as well. Therefore, when such a person is produced before a Magistrate, the Magistrate has the power to remand the person to custody if bail is refused. The court referred to the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. O.P. Gupta and Others, which overruled the earlier Division Bench decision in Dalam Chand Baid's case, and held that the Magistrate has the power to remand a person produced before him under Section 104 of the Customs Act by virtue of Section 167(2) and (3) Cr.P.C. The court also agreed with the views expressed by the High Courts of Kerala and Gujarat on this issue. Conclusion: Crl. M.P. No. 11117 of 1988 was dismissed as infructuous. Crl. M.P. No. 254 of 1989, challenging the legality of the arrest, was dismissed. The court held that the Magistrate has the power to remand a person arrested under the Customs Act, and Crl. M.P. No. 407 of 1989 was also dismissed.
|
