Customs summons power upheld as constitutional, and repeated non-compliance justified coercive process in criminal proceedings.

Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld as constitutionally valid because it operates as part of a customs inquiry, does not treat summoned persons as similarly situated to ordinary Criminal Procedure Code witnesses, and does not by itself offend Article 14 or the privilege against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The challenge to the Magistrate's process and later warrant also failed: the complaint showed repeated non-compliance with summons, the statutory purpose of Section 202 was not defeated, and coercive process was justified after continued absence despite opportunities. The petitions were therefore rejected and the High Court declined to interfere with the prosecution or the impugned orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the Magistrate's issuance of process and subsequent warrant was illegal for non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the related procedural requirements.

Issue (i): Whether Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The provision was challenged on the footing that it compelled attendance and statement recording at a distant place without reimbursement, allegedly treating unequals alike and exposing the person summoned to self-incrimination. The Court applied the presumption of constitutionality and held that the burden to show clear constitutional transgression had not been discharged. It noted that Section 108 operates in the context of customs inquiry to collect information relating to contravention of customs law, that the persons summoned are not similarly situated to ordinary witnesses under the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the provision does not create hostile discrimination. Relying on the settled position that a person summoned under Section 108 is not an accused at the stage of summons and that the inquiry is for departmental investigation, the Court held that Article 20(3) was not attracted.

Conclusion: Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to be constitutionally valid and not violative of Articles 14 or 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate's issuance of process and subsequent warrant was illegal for non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the related procedural requirements.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed that the petitioners had repeatedly failed to comply with summons and had not remained present despite opportunities and assurances. The Court held that the complaint itself showed sufficient ground to proceed and that, in the circumstances, the statutory purpose of Section 202 was not defeated. It further held that the Magistrate had not straightaway issued the warrant, but had first issued process and later resorted to coercive process only after repeated non-appearance. The issuance of the warrant was therefore treated as justified on the facts.

Conclusion: The challenge to the process and warrant was rejected, and the Magistrate's orders were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on merits and the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary writ and inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the prosecution or the impugned orders.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory summons power used for customs investigation is constitutionally valid when it is part of a non-discriminatory revenue inquiry and does not, by itself, infringe the privilege against self-incrimination; repeated non-compliance with summons can justify coercive process in criminal proceedings arising from such default.

---