2020 (11) TMI 88 - HC - Customs

Right to obtain copies of statements recorded under section 108 of CA - whether the court was liable to issue copies of the Section 108 statements on receipt of the application under Rule 222 of the Criminal Rules of Practice? - HELD THAT - As per Section 104 of the Act, an authorised officer can arrest a person, if he has reason to believe such person of having committed offences punishable under Section 132 or Section 133 or Section 135 or Section 135-A or Section 136 of the Act. The person arrested should be informed of the grounds for his arrest and taken to a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. Sub-section (3) of Section 108 stipulates that, where an officer of Customs has arrested any person under sub-section (1), he shall, for the purpose of releasing the arrestee on bail or otherwise, have the same powers as an officer-in-charge of a police station under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898). There are substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the interdiction in Section 172(3) Cr.P.C cannot be relied on to deny copies their Section 108 statements to the accused - Even though there are merits in the contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel that an application under Rule 222 of the Criminal Rules of Practice ought to be filed on the administrative side, the fact that the learned Magistrate entertained the application and directed to issue copies of most of the documents applied for, deter me from dismissing the Crl.M.C on that ground. Rule 222 provides for submission of applications for copy of the proceeding or document filed in or in the custody of a court. As far as the instant case is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Section 108 statements were made available for perusal of the court in a sealed cover. The Prosecutor had also requested to keep the statements confidential. Therefore, the statements cannot be termed as documents produced in or in the custody of the court, copies of which are liable to be issued under Rule 222 - Hence, discretion is vested with the court to refuse copies, if the documents or proceedings are confidential or strictly judicial in nature. The learned Magistrate having refused to issue copies of the Section 108 statements finding them to be confidential, there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order. As per the statement filed on behalf of the respondent, copies of relevant papers mandatorily required, including the Section 108 statements was furnished to the petitioner, along with the order made against her under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Right of an accused to obtain copies of Section 108 statements in a case registered by Customs.
2. Interpretation of Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding issuance of copies of statements.
3. Application of Rule 222 of the Criminal Rules of Practice for obtaining copies of documents.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the petitioner, the 3rd accused in a case under Section 135 of the Customs Act and the 2nd accused in a case registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The petitioner sought copies of her Section 108 statements and other related documents. The court considered the right of an accused to obtain copies of such statements under the Customs Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court analyzed the powers of Customs officers under Section 108 and the obligations of persons summoned under this section to provide truthful statements and produce required documents.

2. The court delved into the interpretation of Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which restricts the accused from calling for police diaries unless used by the police officer for refreshing memory or by the court for contradicting the officer. The petitioner argued that this interdiction should not apply to deny her copies of Section 108 statements. The court referred to precedents and concluded that the interdiction in Section 172(3) cannot be relied upon to withhold copies of statements from the accused.

3. The judgment also addressed the application of Rule 222 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which allows parties to apply for copies of court documents. The court discussed the confidentiality of the Section 108 statements, as they were produced in sealed cover and requested to be kept confidential by the Special Prosecutor. The court highlighted Rule 225, which restricts the granting of copies for confidential or strictly judicial documents unless ordered by the court. The court, considering the confidentiality of the statements and the discretion of the court, upheld the refusal to issue copies of the Section 108 statements.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C) based on the reasons discussed, including the provision of relevant papers to the petitioner and the confidentiality of the Section 108 statements.