9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... character of a person accused of an offence under Section 135. In Padam Narain's [ 2008 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT ], it was held that the power to arrest a person by a Customs Officer is statutory in character and cannot be interfered with. Referring to Section 108 of the Customs Act, it was held that Section 108 does not contemplate magisterial intervention. The power is exercised by a Gazetted Officer of the Department. It obliges the person summoned to state truth upon any subject with respect to which he is examined. He is not absolved from speaking truth on the ground that such statement is admissible in evidence and could be used against him. The fact that the applicants have been summoned by the 2nd respondent a number of times ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coconut expeller cake rendering the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act and consequently an offence under Section 135 of the Act. The applicants were issued with notice from the 2 nd respondent who is Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Kochi zonal unit and then detailed statements recorded on several days. The 3 rd applicant has no connection whatsoever with the imports and he is unaware why he has been summoned in connection with the alleged violations. The applicants apprehending arrest by the respondents, had approached the Sessions Court, Ernakulam for anticipatory bail. The same was dismissed vide Annexure-17. Hence the applicants have approached this Court for indulgence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act by the 2 nd respondent and certain illegalities were revealed in their statements. The learned CGC relies on the decisions of this Court in Sahal vs. Senior Intelligence Officer [2019 (3) KLT 12] and Kishin S. Loungani vs. Union of India and others [2017 (1) KHC 3] and also the decisions of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Mehta vs. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 940], Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Ors [(2008) 13 SCC 305] and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajahmundry vs. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. [2000 Crl.L.J 4035] in support of his argument that Section 108 of the Customs Act does not contemplate magisterial intervention and that a person called upon to make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending goods have been seized and therefore the apprehension of the applicants that they may be arrested is well-founded and hence the application for anticipatory bail is sustainable. In the decision in Ramesh Chandra Mehta (supra), the consideration was whether the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the decisions relied upon by the CGC do not squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, submits the learned counsel for the applicants. 8. After having heard the submissions made on either side and after perusing the documents made available, I find that the investigation of the case is still progressing and the applicants have not yet been made accused. Until a comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
