1997 (1) TMI 97 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Criminal prosecution against the petitioner under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere under Section 482 of Cr. P.C.
3. Application of Section 155 of the Customs Act in protecting the actions of the petitioner.
4. Exemption of the Central Government from paying taxes under Article 285 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, an officer of the Customs Department, was facing criminal cases for alleged offenses under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The vehicles in question were seized during official duty for contravention of the Customs Act and later confiscated to the Central Government. The petitioner argued that no criminal prosecution could be launched against him as the Central Government is not liable to pay any tax and the vehicles were confiscated to the Central Government, making them free from encumbrance. He relied on Section 155 of the Customs Act and Article 285 of the Constitution of India to support his defense.

2. The High Court Government Pleader contended that the matters raised by the petitioner should be decided by the Magistrate, and the High Court cannot interfere under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. unless there is an abuse of process of court or no offense is made out. The Court acknowledged the principle that the High Court should not interfere with the Magistrate's order unless necessary.

3. The Court examined the provisions of the Customs Act and noted that the vehicles were seized and confiscated in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 155 of the Customs Act provides protection for actions taken in good faith under the Act. The Court concluded that the petitioner's actions were lawful and protected under the Customs Act, thereby preventing any prosecution against him.

4. In considering the exemption of the Central Government from paying taxes under Article 285 of the Constitution of India, the Court emphasized that the vehicles, being property of the Central Government, were not liable to be taxed under the State Act. Therefore, the Court held that the prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of law. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, quashed the pending proceedings, and set aside the order issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner.