Customs prosecution requires direct involvement in false declarations or evasion; incidental assistance is not enough, and time-bar matters.

Prosecution under Sections 135 and 132 of the Customs Act requires material showing the accused's direct statutory involvement in the prohibited act or in making, signing, using, or causing false customs documents to be used. On the record, the petitioner's role was limited to incidental assistance such as suggesting a CHA and visiting the customs office, with no evidence of participation in the export business or in any false declaration. The complaint also fell beyond the one-year limitation applicable to the offence under Section 132 as framed at the relevant time. The criminal proceedings were therefore unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 135 of the Customs Act for being knowingly concerned in misdeclaration, fraudulent evasion, or attempt to avail drawback in relation to the export transaction. (ii) Whether the petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 132 of the Customs Act and whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 135 of the Customs Act for being knowingly concerned in misdeclaration, fraudulent evasion, or attempt to avail drawback in relation to the export transaction.

Analysis: Section 135 fastens liability only where a person is knowingly concerned in the relevant prohibited act or in the fraudulent evasion or attempted evasion of duty or prohibition. The material on record did not show that the petitioner was the exporter or that he had any role in the export transaction beyond suggesting a CHA, visiting the customs office, or helping with incidental arrangements. There was nothing to indicate his involvement in the export business itself or in any act attracting the statutory ingredients of Section 135.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not liable to be prosecuted under Section 135 of the Customs Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 132 of the Customs Act and whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Section 132 applies only where a person makes, signs, uses, or causes to be made, signed, or used any false declaration, statement, or document in customs-related business. The record did not disclose that the petitioner had made or signed any false declaration or prepared false documents. In addition, the offence under Section 132, as applicable at the relevant time, carried a lesser punishment, and the complaint filed in 1998 concerning events of 1997 was beyond the one-year limitation prescribed by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not liable to be prosecuted under Section 132 of the Customs Act, and the complaint was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings against the petitioner could not be sustained, and quashing was warranted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act cannot be sustained in the absence of material showing the accused's direct statutory involvement, and a complaint filed beyond the applicable limitation period is liable to be quashed.

---