2022 (7) TMI 1433 - HC - Customs

Direction to concerned authorities to produce the respondent for custodial interrogation - diversion and sale of duty-free gold bullion in the domestic market with the active involvement of the respondent - fabrication of export documents - HELD THAT - The Gazetted Officer of customs shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry. That does not mean that power is vested upon the Officer of customs to collect information which would otherwise be termed as incriminating material from the person against whom accusation is made. A person cannot be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to procedure established by law as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, we have got Article 20 (3), which says that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Though not it can be termed that examining the person against whom accusation is made as a witness, the police or the other officials who are investigating a case cannot be permitted to compel a person against whom accusation is made to make a statement either inculpatory or exculpatory. It is the duty of the Investigating Agency under whatever cadre it may be to investigate the case and to cull out the truth - Permission cannot be accorded for interrogating him only for the purpose of recording his statement for proceeding with the investigation. This Court does not find any other grounds, more so justifiable grounds, to accord such permission. The criminal petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Request to quash the order for custodial interrogation based on the Customs Act and constitutional provisions.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash an order for custodial interrogation issued by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, against the respondent. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alleged that the respondent orchestrated fraudulent activities involving the diversion and sale of duty-free gold bullion in the domestic market, making substantial profits. The petitioner argued that the respondent's questioning was essential to uncover the modus operandi behind the fraud. However, the respondent's counsel contended that custodial interrogation was impermissible under the law, emphasizing the obligation of the investigating agency to uncover the truth without compelling statements from the accused.

The impugned order dismissed the petitioner's application for custodial interrogation on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to handle offenses under the Customs Act and that the petitioner failed to provide valid and sufficient grounds for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to question the respondent. The petitioner heavily relied on Section 108 of the Customs Act, which grants power to summon individuals for evidence or document production in inquiries. However, the court emphasized that this provision did not authorize the collection of potentially incriminating information from the accused.

The judgment highlighted constitutional provisions, such as Article 21 protecting life and personal liberty, and Article 20(3) preventing the compulsion of an accused to be a witness against themselves. It underscored that investigating agencies must uncover the truth without coercing statements from the accused. The court found no justifiable grounds to permit custodial interrogation solely for recording the respondent's statement, leading to the dismissal of the criminal petition. Consequently, any related miscellaneous petitions were ordered to be closed.