2006 (4) TMI 170 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.R.P).
2. Merits of the case against the petitioner.
3. Admissibility and credibility of statements and documents.
4. Applicability of Sections 244 and 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).
5. Interpretation of Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.R.P):
The court found that the Crl.R.P itself is not maintainable. The case was triable under Chapter 19 of the Cr.P.C, which deals with warrant cases. According to the procedure prescribed, the Magistrate must hear the prosecution and take all evidence produced in support of the prosecution. The Magistrate had already rejected a previous discharge petition under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C on 16-6-2004, and the subsequent petition filed on 19-8-2004 was also dismissed. Therefore, even if the Crl.R.P is allowed, the earlier order stands, rendering the Crl.R.P not maintainable on that ground alone.

2. Merits of the Case Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the discharge petition. The prosecution alleged that the first accused imported a car using forged documents and manipulated records to appear that the vehicle was imported in 1995. The car's engine and chassis numbers did not match the documents. The court noted that the evidence showed the chassis was that of a Mercedes Benz Model S-320, but the engine number differed, raising doubts about the car's identity. The court found prima facie material suggesting that the car was imported by the second accused (the petitioner), not the first accused.

3. Admissibility and Credibility of Statements and Documents:
The petitioner argued that the statement by Ali Mubarak, who voluntarily appeared and provided an authorization letter, should not be relied upon. The court noted that the petitioner had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, including challenging the authorization letter's genuineness. Since the document was admitted without objection, the petitioner could not dispute its authenticity later. The court found no legal requirement for the authorization to be in a specific form or attested in a particular manner.

4. Applicability of Sections 244 and 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C):
Section 244 Cr.P.C mandates that in warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate must hear the prosecution and take all evidence produced. Section 245(1) Cr.P.C allows the Magistrate to discharge the accused if no case is made out. The court observed that the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine witnesses at the stage of Section 244, and the Magistrate had already rejected the discharge petition after detailed consideration. The court upheld the Magistrate's finding that there were sufficient materials to frame charges against the accused.

5. Interpretation of Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act:
The petitioner contended that the statement by Ali Mubarak could not be used against him under Section 108 of the Customs Act, arguing that a summons was required for recording such statements. The court clarified that Section 108 empowers customs officers to summon persons to give evidence or produce documents, but it does not preclude recording voluntary statements without a summons. Section 107 also allows customs officers to examine persons acquainted with the case facts. The court found that the statement given by Ali Mubarak was admissible and that the non-issuance of a summons did not discredit the statement.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition, finding it not maintainable and lacking merit. The court directed the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial and disposal of the case. Crl.M.P.No. 2675 of 2005 was also dismissed.

← Previous Next →