Quashing threshold and first-instance non-bailable warrants: complaint sustained, but the warrant was set aside for lack of justification.

A complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act was not quashed because the prosecution relied on a co-accused's statement recorded under Sections 107 and 108, which implicated the applicant and supported the case at the quashing stage. The proceedings were therefore allowed to continue. However, the immediate issuance of a non-bailable warrant on the first date of cognizance was held unjustified. Although process may issue at an initial stage, that power is controlled by the scheme of Section 87 CrPC, and summons should ordinarily precede a warrant unless genuine grounds exist for departure. The warrant was accordingly set aside and quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was liable to be quashed; (ii) whether the non-bailable warrant issued on the first date of cognizance was valid in law.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The material relied upon by the prosecution included the statement of the co-accused recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in which the co-accused implicated the applicant and stated that the seized foreign-origin goods were meant for delivery to him. The Court treated such statement as usable against the applicant and found that the record did not justify interference at the stage of quashing.

Conclusion: The complaint was not quashed and the proceedings were directed to continue in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether the non-bailable warrant issued on the first date of cognizance was valid in law.

Analysis: Although Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits process to be issued at the initial stage, that power is controlled by the scheme of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that, ordinarily, summons should precede a warrant and that there must be genuine grounds for issuing a non-bailable warrant at the first instance. On the facts, the immediate issuance of a non-bailable warrant was found unjustified.

Conclusion: The order issuing the non-bailable warrant was set aside and quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent of the non-bailable warrant, while the criminal complaint itself was maintained and allowed to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-bailable warrant should not ordinarily be issued at the first instance unless there are genuine grounds justifying such departure, while a complaint need not be quashed where material, including a co-accused's admissible statement under the Customs Act, supports the prosecution case.

---