TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes fair trial in document supply dispute under Customs Act, 1962. Section 173(4) not applicable.</h1> <h3>DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Versus BHANU CHANDRA & ANR</h3> The Court dismissed the Petitioner's plea to set aside the order to supply documents in a complaint case under the Customs Act, 1962. Emphasizing the ... Directions of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.) to supply copies of documents consisted of more than 300 pages - the amount of customs duty alleged to be evaded was over ₹ 5 crores - whether the Petitioner instead of supplying the copies of the documents to the Respondents ought to have approached this Court invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code? - Held that:- As per Section 482 of the Code, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As per Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992 (8) TMI 301 - SUPREME COURT) the High Court, as the highest Court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State, has inherent powers to make any order for the purposes of securing the ends of justice, it being an extraordinary power, will, however, not be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate Court of its powers. The Petitioner has not been able to make out a case or to show that the order passed by the ACMM was abuse of the process of the Court or that the order is required to be set aside to secure the ends of justice. Petitioner (DRI) ought to have supplied the Respondents with the copies of the documents promptly so that the trial could have proceeded. The Petitioner (DRI) is unable to make out a case for invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code. Rather, the filing of the Petition appears to be mala fide the same is accordingly dismissed. Issues:Petitioner invoking inherent powers under Section 482 for setting aside order to supply documents in a complaint case under Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The Petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), sought to set aside an order directing the supply of documents in a complaint case under the Customs Act, 1962. The DRI initiated a prosecution against the Respondents for evasion of Customs Duty amounting to over Rs. 5.8 crores. The Respondents requested copies of the documents filed by the DRI, crucial for the trial, which the learned A.C.M.M. directed the Petitioner to provide. The Petitioner challenged this order, arguing that there is no legal obligation to supply documents in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report.The Petitioner contended that the provision of Section 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable to police reports, does not extend to complaints filed by public servants. Citing legal precedents, the Petitioner emphasized the distinction between State cases and private complaints. Conversely, the Respondents argued that irrespective of legal provisions, they were entitled to the documents for a fair trial, invoking constitutional principles of equality before the law. They refuted the Petitioner's reliance on legal precedents, asserting the necessity of document supply for a just trial.The Court noted the initiation of the complaint by the DRI against the Respondents and the subsequent request for document copies. Referring to legal judgments, the Court highlighted that Section 173(4) of the Code does not apply to complaint cases, even when filed by public servants. It mentioned a previous case directing document supply to accused persons at their own costs. The Court deliberated on whether the Petitioner should have supplied the documents for a fair trial or invoked inherent powers under Section 482 to withhold them.Considering the scope of Section 482, the Court emphasized its sparing and cautious exercise to prevent abuse of court processes and ensure justice. Referring to legal precedents, the Court clarified the extraordinary nature of inherent powers and their use for extraordinary cases. Ultimately, the Court found the Petitioner's case lacking merit, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial and expeditious proceedings. The Court dismissed the Petition, suggesting a potential mala fide intent behind its filing, and stressed the need for document supply for a just trial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
