2008 (10) TMI 1 - SC - Customs

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

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 ... Power of arrest under Customs Act, 1962 - Section 108 of the Customs Act - summons to give evidence - Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC - no blanket orders - Judicial interference with statutory arrest powers - Statements recorded under Section 108 - evidentiary character and non-accused statusPower of arrest under Customs Act, 1962 - Judicial interference with statutory arrest powers - Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC - no blanket orders - Validity of the High Court's direction that Customs Authorities shall not arrest the respondents for any non-bailable offence without ten days prior notice. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the power to arrest conferred on customs officers by Section 104 of the Customs Act is statutory, exercisable when the officer has 'reason to believe' that an offence enumerated in the Act has been committed, and is circumscribed by objective considerations and procedural safeguards (informing grounds of arrest and production before a magistrate without unnecessary delay). An order by a court which imposes a prior-notice condition before a statutory arrest or which operates as a blanket immunity against arrest for 'any non-bailable offence' unlawfully interferes with and curtails the statutory powers of arrest. Relying on the principles in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, a blanket anticipatory protection covering any and all non-bailable offences is impermissible; courts must not issue directions which render statutory arrest powers ineffective or provide a charter for obstruction of investigation. Consequently, the High Court's direction requiring ten days' prior notice and its blanket protection insofar as it precluded arrest for any non-bailable offence were held illegal and set aside. [Paras 51, 60, 63, 64, 65]The High Court's direction to the Customs Authorities that the respondents shall not be arrested for any non-bailable offence without ten days prior notice is illegal and is set aside.Section 108 of the Customs Act - summons to give evidence - Statements recorded under Section 108 - evidentiary character and non-accused status - Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC - no blanket orders - Whether anticipatory bail applications filed by the respondents were premature in view of summons under Section 108 and whether the High Court rightly disposed of those applications by directing appearance before Customs Authorities. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that Section 108 empowers a gazetted customs officer to summon persons to give evidence or produce documents in an inquiry; statements recorded under Section 108 are taken by departmental officers and the person summoned is not to be treated as an accused at that stage. The High Court correctly held that, where only summons under Section 108 had been issued and respondents were summoned to give evidence, applications for anticipatory bail were premature and could be disposed of by directing the respondents to appear before the customs authorities. However, while disposal on that ground was proper, the additional protective condition (ten days' prior notice against arrest) went beyond permissible disposal and was struck down as noted above. [Paras 55, 56, 57, 58, 63]The High Court was right in treating the anticipatory bail applications as premature and in directing the respondents to appear before the Customs Authorities; but the ancillary condition imposing ten days' prior notice before arrest was not lawful and is set aside.Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: the High Court's disposal of anticipatory bail applications as premature and its direction to the respondents to appear before the Customs Authorities is sustained, but the directions and conditions imposed on the Customs Authorities (including ten days' prior notice and any blanket protection against arrest for any non-bailable offence) are illegal and 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.