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 any relief could be granted in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when no complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 had yet been filed, and whether the pending restraint conditions arising from the customs investigation warranted interference.
Analysis: The allegations concerned alleged fraudulent import of vehicles, misdeclaration, undervaluation, and evasion of customs duty. The applicant had been arrested, enlarged on bail, and made subject to conditions including cooperation, periodic appearance before the DRI, and deposit of passport. The Court noted that no complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 had been lodged before the competent court, but also took note of the pendency of related proceedings and the prosecution guidelines contained in Circular No. 27/2015-Customs dated 23.10.2015. The Court considered the long passage of time and the hardships caused to the applicant, while leaving it to the authorities to act in accordance with the prosecution guidelines and to proceed at the earliest.
Conclusion: No substantive relief was granted in the absence of a filed complaint, and the application was disposed of without quashing the proceedings or granting the ancillary prayers.