9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge of process in a criminal case for violation of the Customs Act, 1962 based on a retracted confession of co-accused. Analysis: The judgment delivered by S.W. Puranik, J. pertains to a case where the Petitioner, who is the owner of a shipping vessel, was accused of violating the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner's vessel was detained and searched by Customs Authorities, leading to the discovery of contraband gold concealed on board. The Petitioner, along with his Tindel and Khalassis, was arrested in connection with the smuggling incident. The Tindel initially made a confessional statement implicating both himself and the Petitioner in the smuggling operation, but later retracted it. Despite the lack of independent evidence, the Assistant Collector of Customs filed a criminal complaint based solely on the retracted confession of the Tindel. The Additional Collector of Customs had previously exonerated the Petitioner, stating that apart from the retracted confession, there was no other evidence linking the Petitioner to the smuggling activity. The Tindel had retracted his confession, alleging physical torture and coercion by Customs officials to implicate the Petitioner. The complaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs did not mention the adjudication proceedings or the exoneration of the Petitioner by the adjudicating authority. The complaint relied heavily on the retracted confession and the testimonies of Investigating Officers and Panchas, who lacked personal knowledge of the alleged criminal acts. The judgment highlighted the lack of reasonable grounds or a prima facie case in the complaint to proceed against the Petitioner. Continuing the prosecution against the Petitioner would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Therefore, the court quashed the order issuing process against the Petitioner, emphasizing the necessity to uphold the ends of justice. The petition was allowed, and the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process against the Petitioner was set aside, ruling in favor of the Petitioner and emphasizing the insufficiency of evidence and the abuse of legal process in the case.
|
