9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 108 of the Customs Act are admissible in evidence and under what circumstances the said statements were made and retracted can only be appreciated during the trial, if at all, the case goes to trial. For the present, the revealations under Section 108 of the Customs Act are relevant for the respondent to carry on the investigation. It is within the domain of the investigator to seek remand of a person. The requirement of the remand would depend upon the facts and circumstances concerning the individual / accused. The investigator may decide not to obtain remand if he is satisfied with the information he required for prosecuting a person has formed the record. Therefore, petitioner has no right to contend that in absence of remand of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of other offence. It was submitted that no steps were taken after the seizer of muddamal on 01.08.2017 until 08.11.2017 when the statement of co-accused Sanjaykumar Mulchandbhai Shah came to be recorded. It was submitted that until 09.11.2017 the petitioner was in custody and the wheels started moving against the petitioner only after he secured liberty after two default bails. It was contended that the intention of the respondent is not to investigate the case but to harass the petitioner and that is why the respondent waited for the petitioner s release and immediately after his release, the respondent has now decided to arrest the petitioner. 3.2 It was contended that Sanjay, on whose statement, the petitioner is sought to be arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount specified by this Court. It is urged to release the petitioner on bail in anticipation of his arrest. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that on the Betel Nuts which are smuggled by the petitioner, 105% duty is imposable and a sum of ₹ 90 Lacs is avoided by the petitioner as duty payable on the said goods. It was argued that petitioner has been playing behind the curtains under various covers by establishing different entities indicated in the statements of Sanjay in detail, with an object to smuggle the goods like gold, cigarette, betel nuts, etc. It was argued that Radhika is a firm operated by the petitioner through Tushar Thakkar, who is on the run and coaccused Sanjay Shah, who is petitioner s ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said statements; but at this stage of the proceedings, this Court would not discount the statements made by the said accused on the mere ground of retraction; inasmuch as, retraction of a statement can be no impediment for investigation of a case on such statement. It cannot be disputed that statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible in evidence and under what circumstances the said statements were made and retracted can only be appreciated during the trial, if at all, the case goes to trial. For the present, the revealations under Section 108 of the Customs Act are relevant for the respondent to carry on the investigation. 5.1 On perusal of the statements of accused Sanjay, that minute revealations pointing out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith a submission that the official record i.e. log book does not reveal the petitioner s presence in the office of the respondent. Being a disputed question of fact, this Court would not go into the said aspect. Only relevant question at this stage is the necessity of petitioner s custodial interrogation. 5.5. It is within the domain of the investigator to seek remand of a person. The requirement of the remand would depend upon the facts and circumstances concerning the individual / accused. The investigator may decide not to obtain remand if he is satisfied with the information he required for prosecuting a person has formed the record. Therefore, petitioner has no right to contend that in absence of remand of co-accused, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aled by the co-accused Sanjay, this Court for the reasons recorded hereinabove, would not exercise discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5.9 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged for extension of the interim relief granted by this Court at the time of issuance of the rule against the respondent. The request is being objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent with the submission that the argument by the petitioner at the time of securing the said order that despite detection of the offence against the petitioner on 01.08.2017, no action had been taken against the petitioner for about three months, was misplaced in view of the fact that the offence in question against the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
