1968 (10) TMI 49 - SC - Customs

Whether that prosecution is barred under Article 20(2) of the Constitution which says that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once? Whether the prosecution must be quashed because of the delay in instituting the same? Held that - We do not think that the High Court was justified in interfering with the discretion of the learned Magistrate. Whether a particular document should be summoned or not is essentially in the discretion of the trial court. In the instant case the Special Public Prosecutor had assured the learned trial Magistrate that he would keep in readiness the statements of witnesses recorded by the Customs authorities sand shall make available to the defence Counsel the statement of the concerned witness as and when he is examined. The High Court has not come to the conclusion that the documents in question if not produced in court are likely to be destroyed or tampered with or the same are not likely to be made available when required. It has proceeded on the erroneous basis that the accused will not have a fair trail unless they are supplied with the copies of those statements even before the enquiry commences. Except for very good reasons the High Court should not interfere with the discretion conferred on the trial courts in the matter of summoning documents. Such interferences would unnecessarily impede the progress of cases and result in waste of public money and time as has happened in this case.

Issues Involved:
(i) Whether the prosecution is barred under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
(ii) Whether the finding of the Collector of Customs operates as an issue estoppel.
(iii) Whether the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court due to inordinate delay.
(iv) Whether Section 173(4), Criminal Procedure Code is applicable.
(v) Whether the documents mentioned in the petition need to be summoned under Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Prosecution Barred Under Article 20(2):
The first issue examined was whether the prosecution is barred under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. The Court noted that proceedings before the Collector of Customs do not constitute a "prosecution" nor is the Collector a "Court." The Court referenced previous judgments, including Maqbool Hussain v. The State of Bombay, which established that adjudications by Customs authorities are not criminal prosecutions. Therefore, Article 20(2) does not apply, and the prosecution is not barred.

2. Issue Estoppel by Collector of Customs' Finding:
The second issue was whether the finding of the Collector of Customs that the accused were not conclusively guilty could operate as an issue estoppel in the criminal case. The Court explained that the rule of issue estoppel, a facet of the doctrine of autrefois acquit, requires a previous lawful trial by a competent court resulting in an acquittal. Since the Collector of Customs' proceedings are not considered a criminal trial, the finding does not amount to a verdict of acquittal. Thus, issue estoppel does not apply.

3. Abuse of Process Due to Delay:
The third issue was whether the prosecution should be quashed due to inordinate delay, constituting an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court found that the delay was satisfactorily explained and that no period of limitation was prescribed for filing the complaint. The delay could be considered in the final verdict but did not justify quashing the prosecution.

4. Applicability of Section 173(4), Criminal Procedure Code:
The fourth issue examined was whether Section 173(4), Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates that the accused be furnished with certain documents before the trial, was applicable. The Court clarified that Section 173(4) applies only to cases investigated by police officers under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, followed by a final report under Section 173. Since the present case was not initiated on a police report, Section 173(4) was deemed inapplicable.

5. Summoning Documents Under Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code:
The final issue was whether the documents mentioned in the petition needed to be summoned under Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court had directed the Magistrate to summon the statements of witnesses recorded by Customs authorities and make them available to the accused. The Supreme Court found this direction erroneous, stating that Section 94 does not empower a Magistrate to direct the prosecution to provide copies of documents to the accused. The Court emphasized that summoning documents is within the trial court's discretion and should not be interfered with without good reasons.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1967, filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs and the State of Maharashtra, and dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1967, filed by the accused. The order of the learned Magistrate was restored, affirming that the prosecution was not barred under Article 20(2), issue estoppel did not apply, the delay did not constitute an abuse of process, Section 173(4) was inapplicable, and the High Court's direction to summon documents was incorrect.

← Previous Next →