9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Singh Sullar, J 1. The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, on receipt of secret information, Petitioner Gurwant Singh son of Ajit Singh was apprehended by the custom staff and police on 14th June, 1994 at Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana. After completion of the formalities and in pursuance of search, 79 gold biscuits, with foreign markings and Indian currency of Rs. 1,53,000, were recovered from his possession in the presence of independent witnesses. The smuggled gold biscuits were seized and taken into possession by the custom staff, by virtue of search memo under Sections 110 and 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the rules framed thereunder (hereinafter, to be referred as "the Act and relevant Rules"). The Petitioner made voluntary statement before the custom officers, admitting the recovery of the gold biscuits and confessed that he had been working in Abu Dhabi for the last 3-4 years. He brought the said biscuits to Ludhiana, and for this job he was to get commission of Rs.4,000. Consequently, the Petitioner was arrested by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of aforesaid averments, the Petitioner has sought to quash the complaint (Annexure P2) on the following grounds: (i) That the Petitioner has stolen the property, i.e. gold biscuits of Resham Lal which were not smuggled one but were cleared by the Custom Authorities at the Delhi Air Port after getting requisite duty from Resham Lal and looking into the relevant papers. (ii) That the Petitioner has been tried by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and was convicted for the offence under Sections 379/34 IPC and he undergone the sentence awarded by the competent Court. (iii) That the complaint filed by the Custom Authorities before the learned CJM, Ludhiana (Annexure P2) is against the principles of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. (iv) That when gold biscuits do not belong to the Petitioner, he cannot be charged under Section 135 of the Customs Act and the very allegation leveled against him in the complaint is an abuse of the process of law. 6. The Complainant refuted the prayer of the Petitioner and filed the reply, inter alia, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prehended by the custom staff and police on 14th June, 1994 at Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana. Having completed all the codal formalities and taken requisite sanction, the Complainant filed the complaint (Annexure P2) under Section 135 of the Act. Thereafter, Resham Lal filed a complaint against the Petitioner and his other co-accused on 5th July, 1994 (after 20 days of the recovery of gold biscuits from the Petitioner) in Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi, in regard to the occurrence/theft of 27th May, 1994 and a criminal case under Sections 379/34 IPC was registered against them. 10. It is not a matter of dispute that the Petitioner was produced before the Delhi Court through production warrant, whereas the remaining accused were declared proclaimed offenders. Thereafter, he (Petitioner) moved an application, made his statement and confessed his guilt of theft of gold biscuits. On the basis of his confession, he was convicted and sentenced by the Metropolitan Magistrate, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence (Annexure P1). If the epitome of the facts mentioned hereinabove, is put together, then, the conclusion is irresistible that the Petitioner, with the connivance of oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Petitioner and mere possession or dealing with such gold, in any manner, is an offence punishable under the Act. Whether the gold biscuits were brought to India in a lawful manner or otherwise or what is the effect of judgment of conviction (Annexure P1), etc. would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the Trial Court. If such points, which require the determination by the Trial Court, are decided by this Court in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. then, the sanctity of the trial, would pale into insignificance and amount to nullify the statutory provisions of trial, as contemplated under the Cr.P.C. which is not legally permissible. In this manner, to my mind, the judgment (Annexure PI) based on the confession of the Petitioner, has got nothing to do with the controversy involved in the complaint (Annexure P2) in this relevant connection. 15. Likewise, the questions, scope and jurisdiction of this Court for quashing a complaint at the initial stage of the trial under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not res Integra. It is well-settled proposition of law that in case, on the bare reading, the offences are made therefrom, no order can be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der: 3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and going through the record of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for framing the charge under Section 135 of the Customs act against the accused. The accused was found in unauthorized possession of 79 gold biscuits of foreign origin. There is nothing to show that the said biscuits had been imported into India in a lawful manner. Once the accused was found in possession of gold biscuits of foreign origin and he has not been able to prove that the same had been imported lawfully into India, he is liable to be charged under Section 135 of the Customs Act. No doubt, in the judgment delivered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, there is a mention that the biscuits had been imported into India by Resham Lal and Hanif and they had paid the custom duty at the Airport, but there is no evidence to substantiate the said recitals. In the matter before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the question as to if the said biscuits had been imported legally into India or the same had been imported in an lawful manner was not involved. Moreover, the possibility of the said case having been got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
