Court Upholds Customs Act Charge, Rejects Double Jeopardy Argument

Prahlad Neema and Anr. Versus Union of India

Prahlad Neema and Anr. Versus Union of India - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Framing of charge under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Application of the doctrine of Double Jeopardy.
3. Validity of criminal proceedings post exoneration by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs.
4. Consideration of previous judgments and their applicability.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Framing of Charge under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The applicants were charged under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 2/1997. The factual matrix involved a search conducted on 27-2-1992, where 90 silver slabs of foreign origin, weighing 3041.493 kgs and valued at Rs. 2,41,00,000/-, were recovered from the premises in possession of the accused. The prosecution alleged that no customs duty was paid for these slabs. The trial court framed the charge after examining six prosecution witnesses and providing an opportunity for cross-examination to the accused.

2. Application of the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy:
The applicants argued that the doctrine of Double Jeopardy, which prevents a person from being tried twice for the same offence, should apply since they were exonerated by the Commissioner, Central Excise, and Customs. They cited several judgments to support their claim, including D. & H. Secheron Electrodes v. Asstt. Collector Central Excise and Sureshchand Gupta v. Union of India, among others.

3. Validity of Criminal Proceedings Post Exoneration by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs:
The trial court rejected the applicants' contention, stating that the complaint was not based on the Commissioner's order but was a separate complaint. The prosecution had examined six witnesses, and the applicants had the opportunity to cross-examine them. The court noted that the department had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was pending. Therefore, the applicants could not be discharged solely based on the Commissioner's order.

4. Consideration of Previous Judgments and Their Applicability:
The applicants relied on multiple judgments to argue against the continuation of criminal proceedings. However, the court, referencing the Supreme Court's judgments in Assistant Collector of Customs v. L.R. Malwani and P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, held that the proceedings before the Commissioner were not a "prosecution" and the Commissioner was not a "Court." Therefore, Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 300 in the new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) did not apply. The court emphasized that the trial court had rightly framed the charge based on the complaint and the material presented, making out a prima facie case for continuation of the trial.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that no case was made out for quashing the charge framed by the trial court. The revision was dismissed, and consequently, M.Cr.C. No. 3121/2003 for stay was also dismissed as infructuous.