Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of immunity and notice protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The provision was held to operate on two distinct conditions. The first protects acts done or intended to be done in good faith in pursuance of the Customs Act, while the second prescribes notice and a time bar for proceedings arising from such protected acts. Those requirements were read conjointly, not disjointly. Since the prosecution alleged cheating, conspiracy and illegal gratification under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and not an act done in good faith in pursuance of the Customs Act, the petitioner could not invoke Section 155(2) as an independent bar to prosecution. The prior decisions relied on were distinguished as arising from different statutory settings.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to quashing on the basis of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the criminal proceedings were maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The notice bar in Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 does not independently shield a person from criminal prosecution for offences not committed in good faith in pursuance of the Customs Act; the protection under Section 155 applies only when the act satisfies the good-faith requirement of Section 155(1).