TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Petition to Set Aside Criminal Proceedings Under Customs Act Due to Lack of Evidence</h1> <h3>T. Mokanraj, Chandrasekaran, C. Raja, R.S. Guru Bahadur, Suresh S. Samuel, V.S. Stalin Versus Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise</h3> The High Court dismissed the petition to set aside proceedings in a criminal case under the Customs Act, emphasizing that the petitioners failed to ... Duty drawback - inferior quality of goods - opportunity to cross examine the witnesses - Held that: - a petition u/s 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service for making a fishing or roving enquiry. The petitioners must first make out a prima facie case that the document that is called for is in existence and that it is available with the concerned Department. That apart, the petitioner should also explain as to how that said document would be just and relevant for the enquiry or trial at hand. Application for requesting for a copy of the order that is said to have been passed by Mr.Madhavan, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD, filed by petitioner rejected - Held that: - the Public Information Officer has not denied the existence of the document, but has only stated that it is not traceable. Be that as it may, for maintaining a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the petitioner to give entire description of the document for the Court to issue a subpoena. In the absence of those particulars, by merely relying upon the reply given by the Public Information Officer, which is indeed vague, one cannot come to the conclusion that the said Madhavan had passed an order as contended by the petitioners/accused. Therefore, the trial Court was perfectly right in dismissing the petition with observation that the same has been filed only to protract the proceedings. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed - The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and if the accused do not co-operate in the trial, it is open to the trial Court to insist upon their presence and remand them to custody. Issues:Petition to set aside proceedings in a criminal case under the Customs Act based on the rejection of an application to call a witness and examine certain documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C.Analysis:The petitioners are facing trial for supplying inferior quality goods and claiming duty drawback unjustly under the Customs Act. The prosecution has been ongoing since 2005, and the accused have been given opportunities to cross-examine witnesses and recall them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused then sought to examine a retired Deputy Commissioner of Customs as a witness, but the trial court dismissed their application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for relevant documents pertaining to the witness's actions during his service. The petitioners argued that the documents were crucial for proving their innocence.The High Court considered the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padi, emphasizing that a Section 91 Cr.P.C. petition cannot be used for a fishing expedition. The petitioners must establish the existence and relevance of the documents sought. The court found the petition lacking in essential details necessary for issuing a subpoena and failed to explain how the documents would benefit their case. The petitioners had previously obtained some information through the Right to Information Act but were unsatisfied and sought additional documents, which were denied by the department.The court noted that the Public Information Officer stated the document was not traceable, but the petitioners did not provide sufficient description for the court to issue a subpoena. Relying solely on vague responses was deemed insufficient to conclude the existence of the document in question. The court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the petition, stating it seemed filed to delay proceedings. The petitioners' request to file a fresh petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was denied, as repeatedly invoking the provision for the same document would be an abuse of process.Ultimately, the High Court found the petition devoid of merit and dismissed it. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial, with the option to insist on the accused's presence and remand them to custody if they do not cooperate. Failure to comply may result in the registration of an FIR against the petitioners under Section 229-A IPC.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
