2008 (7) TMI 416 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - whether the court is not required to examine as to whether on the basis of the evidence on record the accused can be convicted or not? Held that - It is true that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not readily exercised by the High Courts and particularly when the two courts below have reached to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to proceed against the accused but when the very basis and foundation on the basis of which the courts proceeded appears to be just contrary to the settled legal position and when it appears that the allegations are of grave nature then to see that justice be done and when dropping of the proceedings is against public interest then the court can certainly exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as non-exercise of the powers by the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may also result into miscarriage of justice and that justice to public and sometimes that may cause injustice to the country. Looking to the above facts this court is of the view that the order passed by the revisional court dated 4-10-2004 and the order passed by the trial court dated 12-4-2001 cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside hence set aside. The trial court is directed to frame charge against the respondent under Section 135(1) of the Act of 1962 and proceed with the trial. The record be sent to the trial court forthwith. The accused shall appear before the trial court on 4-8-2008. The trial court is expected to complete the trial expeditiously and preferably on or before 31-12-2008 in view of the fact that the matter is old one.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order of Revisional Court, Interpretation of evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C., Dismissal of revision petition, Allegations against accused, Framing of charge, Exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Public interest in legal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to Revisional Court Order:
The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the Revisional Court's order dated 4-10-2004, which dismissed the revision petition against the order of the Special Court (Economic Offences), Jodhpur dated 12-7-2001. The petitioner contests the trial court's assumption during the framing of the charge and argues that the defense of the accused should not have been considered at that stage.

2. Interpretation of Evidence under Section 108 of the Act:
The prosecution's case revolves around the recovery of illegal gold and silver articles from a vehicle. The respondent, accused of driving the vehicle, claimed ignorance about the hidden contrabands. The court analyzed the respondent's statement under Section 108 of the Act of 1962, where he admitted trying to run away and the firing incident by customs officials. The court emphasized that the respondent's explanation does not negate the prosecution's allegations, and there was sufficient material to frame the charge.

3. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The court deliberated on the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It noted that while these powers are not readily invoked, they can be utilized if the lower courts' decisions seem contrary to legal principles or public interest. In this case, the court found that dropping the proceedings would be against public interest and could lead to a miscarriage of justice, prompting the court to set aside the previous orders.

4. Dismissal of Revision Petition:
The Revisional Court's dismissal of the revision petition was deemed unsustainable, leading to the direction to frame charges against the respondent under Section 135(1) of the Act of 1962. The court instructed the trial court to proceed with the trial promptly, considering the age of the case and the need for expeditious resolution.

5. Public Interest in Legal Proceedings:
The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring justice and preventing injustice to the country. It highlighted the necessity of upholding legal procedures and public interest in cases involving grave allegations, ultimately allowing the misc. petition and setting aside the previous orders to ensure a fair trial process.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on upholding legal principles, ensuring fair proceedings, and considering public interest while directing the trial court to frame charges and expedite the trial process in the case involving allegations under the Customs Act, 1962.