Statutory immunity for customs raid officers upheld where actions were taken in good faith during enforcement under gold control law.

Officials conducting a customs raid at premises used for licensed gold-related activity were found, on a prima facie basis, to be protected by Section 108 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 because the raid was aimed at detecting possible illegal activity and there was no showing of unlawful trespass. The Court treated the acts as done in good faith in performance of statutory functions and held that allowing the prosecution to proceed would undermine that immunity. Interference under Article 136 was declined, and the complaint was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint against excise and customs arising out of the raid should be quashed on the basis of statutory protection under Section 108 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Analysis: The complaint arose from a raid conducted by customs officials in premises where licensed gold-related activity was being carried on. The record indicated that the officials were not shown to have trespassed for an unlawful purpose and that the raid was directed towards detecting possible illegal activity. The Court formed a prima facie view that the officials were entitled to the protection of Section 108 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 for acts done in good faith in the performance of functions under the Act. It also declined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, observing that allowing the prosecution to proceed to trial would effectively defeat the statutory protection.

Conclusion: The complaint was rightly quashed and the statutory immunity under Section 108 was held available to the officials; interference was declined.

---