9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the two petitioners seek quashing of a criminal complaint under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pending against them in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. 2. Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that on receiving information that the petitioners were importing electronic goods from Hong Kong at grossly undervalued prices and had been submitting invoices showing lower price to Indian Customs authorities at the time of import the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI in short) investigated the matter. After investigation notices were given by the Additional Director General, DRI, New Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of immunity from their prosecution since the criminal complaint for their prosecution had already been filed in Court by the DRI before their approaching the Settlement Commission. 3. The petitioners have now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint pending against them in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners while arguing in support of this petition did not dispute that as far as the Settlement Commission's order in not giving the benefit of immunity from prosecution to the petitioners is concerned there was nothing wrong in that order in view of the provisions of Section127-H of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that relief also besides immunity from penalty and fine, namely, their' approaching the Settlement Commission five days after the filing of the criminal complaint in Court by the DRI about which they actually had no knowledge on 7-4-2003 when they had filed the applications for settlement be fore the Settlement Commission. Mr. Tulsi contended that that technical obstacle which was before the Settlement Commission should not deter this Court in exercising the powers it has under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for doing justice to the petitioners and denial of that relief to the petitioners would be against the spirit and the legislative intent behind the provision of settlement of disputes regarding customs duty by approaching the Settlement Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om prosecution where the proceedings for prosecution for any such offence had been instituted before the date of receipt of the application under Section 127-B this petition deserves to be dismissed and complaint against the petitioners should not be quashed by this Court just be cause the petitioners had paid the customs duty as per the decision of the Settlement Commission. The submission was that the petitioners could always with draw their applications for settlement after they had come to know that their prosecution had already been launched before their filing applications for settlement before the Settlement Commission instead of paying the demanded amount of customs duty and having not done that they cannot be permitted now to say t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Settlement Commission is not giving them the immunity from prosecution since it had no such power and, in fact, there is a specific bar against the grant of this benefit by the Settlement Commission after the initiation of prosecution of the duty evader. However, the legislature has also made a provision for the offenders to seek relief of immunity from prosecution even after initiation of the prosecution by framing Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules. 2005. These Rules were framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 156(2)(h) and Section 137(3) of the Act. Rule 3 of these Rules provides that an application for compounding of the offences under the Act can be made either before or after i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the complaint against the petitioners is concerned the same, in my view, can be very well urged before the trial Court where the complaint is pending trial since the plea of the Department is that final destination of the goods imported by the petitioners at undervalued prices was Delhi. In view of these rival factual stands from both the sides this question cannot be determined in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. So, on this ground also the petitioners cannot succeed in this petition. 9. No other point was urged. 10. This petition is accordingly dismissed. It would, however, still be open to the petitioners to approach the Compounding Authority under the Compounding Rules of 2005 for compounding of the offences for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
