2023 (6) TMI 424 - HC - Customs

Right to speedy trial - Allegation of corruption on the ASI / Policer officer posted at Railway - Abetment in evasion of customs duty - Inordinate delay in filing the PR/final report - it is submitted that the allegation made in the complaint or in the final report submitted by the Customs Authority did not constitute offence punishable u/s 135 of Customs Act against the present petitioners - when the P.R disclosed sufficient materials against the present petitioners to proceed; and fact goes to show that the criminal proceeding has not proceeded at all though it has been pending since 25 years is it justifiable for this revisional court to quash proceeding on the sole ground that the accused has denied his right to speedy trial? HELD THAT - The revisional court has the power to quash the proceeding if it appears that there are no sufficient materials to proceed further or if it appears that the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of court. In considering the right of the accused of speedy trial in my view the test is whether the personal life or liberty of the present petitioners was at all infringed by the pendency of the criminal proceeding since long. If it appears that the present petitioner has had suffered immense and his life and personal liberty was jeopardy during the entire period for the pendency of the criminal proceeding then the relief on the ground of right to speedy trial guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under Article 21 must be established. But if it appears that no hindrance has caused to petitioner during the entire period or his day to day life was not disrupted due to the pendency of the criminal proceeding then the right enshrined under Article 21 need not necessarily be come into play. During their entire period of service they never terminated due to the pendency of this criminal proceeding nor they anyway disturbed in performing their service. After successful completion of service period they retired on superannuation. The petitioners claim for right to speedy trial cannot be entertained of this case as there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner in the P.R. there are no justification to entertain the present petitioner to quash the criminal proceeding. The instant criminal revision is dismissed being devoid of merit.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 read with Sections 197/401 Cr.P.C.
2. Alleged commission of offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Delay in the filing of the final report and right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceeding (Criminal Misc Case no. 02/97) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad, for alleged offenses under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argued that the allegations in the complaint and final report did not constitute an offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act. They also contended that the cognizance taken by the CJM on 14.02.2017, almost 20 years after the alleged offense, was legally untenable and should be set aside.

Issue 2: Alleged Commission of Offense
The facts of the case indicate that on 03.01.1997, the Customs Preventive Unit apprehended five individuals from a train and seized foreign-made electronic goods. The petitioners, who were on duty at the time, were later arrested and released on bail. The confiscation proceedings resulted in penalties, which were appealed and eventually remanded for de-novo adjudication by the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue 3: Delay and Right to Speedy Trial
The petitioners emphasized the inordinate delay in the filing of the final report, causing misery and harassment. They invoked the right to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, citing the Supreme Court's decision in AR Antulay Vs. RS Nayak, which underscores the accused's right to a speedy trial at all stages of criminal proceedings. The petitioners argued that the prolonged delay without significant progress violated their constitutional rights and amounted to an abuse of the legal process.

The opposite party countered that the delay did not prejudice the petitioners and that the Economic Offense (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1947, negated any limitation period for investigations under the Customs Act. They argued that the petitioners were involved in aiding smugglers and obstructing Customs authorities, and thus, the delay alone should not be grounds for quashing the proceedings.

Judgment:
The court considered the principles laid down in AR Antulay's case, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial encompasses all stages of a criminal proceeding. However, the court noted that these principles are not exhaustive or rigid rules. The court distinguished the present case from the Dilip Kumar Mukherjee case, where the accused had to appear in court for 25 years without significant progress. In contrast, the petitioners in this case had minimal court appearances and continued their service without disruption.

The court concluded that the petitioners' right to a speedy trial was not infringed as their personal life and liberty were not significantly affected by the delay. The court found sufficient material in the final report to proceed against the petitioners and dismissed the revision petition, directing the CJM to conclude the proceedings within one year.

Disposition:
The criminal revision was dismissed for lack of merit, and the CJM was instructed to conclude the proceedings within one year. Pending applications were also disposed of, and any stay orders were vacated.