2008 (10) TMI 1 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court Overturns High Court's Anticipatory Bail Directions under Customs Act, 1962

UNION OF INDIA Versus PADAM NARAIN AGGARWAL ETC.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's directions and conditions in a case involving anticipatory bail applications and the power of arrest under ... Conditions imposed by HC on Customs Authorities - HC held that since the respondents were merely summoned, anticipatory bail applications filed by them were pre-mature – HC disposed of those applications by directing the respondents to appear before the Custom Authorities & directed the Authorities that even if respondent has committed a non-bailable offence, they shall not be arrested without 10 days prior notice - above conditions can not be said legal/valid so same are set aside Issues Involved:1. Legality of anticipatory bail applications.2. Validity of the High Court's direction to Customs Authorities not to arrest respondents without ten days prior notice.3. Power of arrest under the Customs Act, 1962.4. Evidentiary value of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.5. Conditions imposed on the exercise of statutory power by the High Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of anticipatory bail applications:The High Court held that anticipatory bail applications filed by the respondents were premature since they were merely summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to give their statements in the inquiry. The High Court directed the respondents to appear before the Customs Authorities and stated that if any non-bailable offence was found, they should not be arrested without ten days prior notice. The Supreme Court, however, found this direction to be illegal and set it aside.2. Validity of the High Court's direction to Customs Authorities not to arrest respondents without ten days prior notice:The Supreme Court held that the direction issued by the High Court to the Customs Authorities not to arrest the respondents without ten days prior notice was illegal and unlawful. It was deemed a 'blanket order of anticipatory bail' and a direction to issue ten days prior notice before arrest, which is unknown to law. The Court emphasized that such an order obstructs and interferes with the statutory power of arrest vested in Customs Officers.3. Power of arrest under the Customs Act, 1962:The Customs Act, 1962, particularly Section 104, empowers Customs Officers to arrest a person if there is 'reason to believe' that the person has committed an offence under Sections 132, 133, 135, 135A, or 136 of the Act. The Supreme Court highlighted that this power is statutory and cannot be interfered with. The Court also noted that the law provides safeguards to ensure that the power of arrest is not abused, such as informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and producing them before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay.4. Evidentiary value of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act:Section 108 of the Customs Act allows Customs Officers to summon individuals to give evidence or produce documents. The Supreme Court reiterated that statements recorded under Section 108 are distinct from those recorded by Police Officers during the course of investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court cited previous judgments to assert that individuals summoned under Section 108 are bound to state the truth and that such statements are admissible in evidence.5. Conditions imposed on the exercise of statutory power by the High Court:The Supreme Court found that the High Court's imposition of conditions on the exercise of statutory power by Customs Officers was not lawful. The Court emphasized that the directions issued by the High Court were neither legal nor valid and obstructed the statutory authority of Customs Officers. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order to the extent of the directions issued to the Customs Authorities.Final Order:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, setting aside the directions and conditions imposed by the High Court on the Customs Authorities. The Court concluded that the High Court's order was a blanket one and unlawfully interfered with the statutory power of arrest vested in Customs Officers.