2013 (9) TMI 831 - HC - Customs

Application for Bail - Charge of Offence u/s 135 r.w. section 104 of the Customs Act Held that - The ultimate object of the Customs Act is to recover revenue which the State was being wrongly deprived of - This was an application for bail - merit was not required to be gone into very deeply but yet some touch of merit requires for the purpose of consideration of bail - It was correct that new amendment had already set in and the offence had been made non-bailable - It was equally correct that whether an offence was bailable or non-bailable, the main object of criminology was to see smooth flow of justice to arrive at a correct decision. So far no picture had been projected before the Court that the petitioner had ever attempted to show his manouvre to outfox the prosecution - the interest of the prosecution had to be looked into - The prosecution should not be made to suffer at the cost of the exchequer of the country - It was an economic offence, no doubt - But the nature of punishment had been ascribed in the Act itself - the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, one of whom must be local.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Interpretation of bailability of the offence under Customs Act.
3. Arguments for and against granting bail.
4. Consideration of legislative changes and judicial precedents.
5. Balancing the interests of justice and investigation in economic offences.

Analysis:

The judgment dealt with a bail application under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was charged with an offence under this section, read with section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that before his arrest, the Customs Authority did not provide clear grounds as required by law. The petitioner's counsel cited judgments comparing the Customs Act with the Central Excise Act, 1944, to argue that the offence should be treated as bailable. The counsel also highlighted the alleged tax evasion amount and the petitioner's willingness to deposit the balance amount.

The Customs Authority opposed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence under sections 46, 135, and 120 of the Customs Act, 1962. They argued that the recent amendment had made the offence non-bailable and raised concerns about hindrance to the investigation if the petitioner was released on bail. The Authority contended that the petitioner was involved in the offence jointly with associates and that containers related to the case were yet to be recovered.

The Court considered the arguments of both sides and the legislative changes, noting that the offence had become non-bailable. However, the Court emphasized the need to balance the interests of justice and investigation in economic offences. Referring to judicial precedents, the Court highlighted the objective of the Customs Act to recover revenue for the state. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of economic offences but also considered the nature of punishment and the absence of custodial trial requirements in this case.

Ultimately, the Court granted bail to the petitioner under specific conditions. The petitioner was required to deposit the alleged evaded tax, cooperate with the investigation, restrict access to containers, stay within Kolkata's jurisdiction, surrender the passport, refrain from tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, and meet the Investigating Officer when required. The Court's decision aimed to ensure the petitioner's release on bail while safeguarding the interests of justice and the progress of the investigation in the economic offence case.