2024 (9) TMI 1432 - HC - Customs

Dismissal of petition for discharge filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. - offences under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - improperly imported goods - Seizure of gold bars from possession of petitioners or not - existence of mens rea - HELD THAT - It is settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. It is also settled law that while considering an application seeking discharge from a case, the Court is not expected to go deep of the probative value of the material on record, but on the other hand, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, and for that purpose, the Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it is a main trial. Since the gold was seized from the possession of the pillion rider of the motorcycle which was driven by the petitioner, whether the petitioner was also involved in the alleged occurrence, cannot be gone into the present stage and it is a matter for trial. Though the petitioner has challenged the sanction order on the ground that the sanction was accorded without considering the nature of evidence, the role of the person in the evidence and mens rea of the person, the petitioner has not whispered anywhere, what are the facts that were not considered in the sanction order and that the petitioner has not shown that there is apparent error on the face of the sanctioning order - Moreover, the petitioner has not produced any evidence or materials so as to enable the Magistrate to give a finding that the charge is groundless. The order dismissing the petition cannot be found fault with. Consequently this Court concludes that the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of petition for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.
2. Nature of evidence and role of accused in offences under Customs Act.
3. Consideration of evidence and mens rea in sanction order.
4. Involvement of accused in seizure of gold bars.
5. Cross-examination of witnesses and ownership of seized gold.
6. Non-arrest of main accused affecting prosecution case.
7. Sufficiency of evidence to frame charges against accused.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Criminal Revision against the dismissal of a petition for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner, an accused in a case under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, sought discharge based on various contentions. The petitioner argued that the gold bars were not seized from his possession but from the pillion rider, disassociating himself from the seized gold. The respondent contended that the petitioner's role amounts to constructive possession, and the burden is on the accused to disprove the presumption of possession. The prosecution relied on evidence including confessional statements and witness testimonies to establish the case against the accused.

The petitioner challenged the sanction order, alleging lack of consideration of evidence, role, and mens rea. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any apparent error in the sanction order. The petitioner also raised concerns regarding the non-arrest of other main accused individuals, arguing it as fatal to the prosecution case. The court emphasized that the non-arrest of some co-accused does not warrant the discharge of other accused. The trial judge found prima facie evidence to frame charges against the accused based on witness testimonies and exhibits, highlighting the sufficiency of evidence to proceed with the case.

The court referenced the legal position that at the stage of discharge application, a prima facie case is evaluated without delving deep into probative value. The court emphasized that detailed inquiry is not necessary at this stage and that the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offense should be considered. Ultimately, the court concluded that the order dismissing the petition for discharge was justified, as the Criminal Revision lacked merit. Consequently, the Criminal Revision was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also dismissed.