Discharge under CrPC refused where customs officers were alleged to have issued false notes and faced a prima facie corruption case.

A discharge request under Section 239 CrPC was rejected because the record disclosed a prima facie case of conspiracy, cheating and corruption-linked conduct. The Court held that pending customs adjudication did not, by itself, bar criminal prosecution where the materials alleged false and misleading office notes were issued to suppress an under-valuation reference. It further found that protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act was unavailable on the pleaded facts because the acts were alleged to be dishonest and outside the scope of official duty. Questions about superior approval and dishonesty were left for trial, and the refusal to discharge was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petitioners were entitled to discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the alleged under-valuation had not been finally adjudicated by the customs authorities and that the prosecution was barred by the protective provisions of the Customs Act; and whether the materials collected by the prosecution disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption offences.

Analysis: The allegations were that the petitioners, while serving in the customs intelligence wing, issued office notes and communications without the approval of the competent superior officers, with the effect of facilitating clearance of goods at a declared value that was alleged to be below the prevailing valuation data. The Court noted that valuation under the Customs Act is governed by the statutory scheme, but the existence of pending departmental adjudication did not by itself disable criminal investigation where the prosecution case was that false and misleading UO notes were issued to suppress the reference regarding under-valuation. The materials, including witness statements and documents, were held sufficient at the stage of discharge to show that the communications were not routine acts done in good faith in the course of duty, and therefore the protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act was not available on the facts alleged. The Court also held that the questions whether the Commissioner had approved the communications and whether the accused had acted dishonestly were matters for trial.

Conclusion: The petitions for discharge were not maintainable on the material then available, and the criminal prosecution was allowed to proceed.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed, and the trial court's refusal to discharge the accused was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Protection under the Customs Act does not extend to acts alleged to be false, dishonest, and outside the scope of official duty, and a discharge application must be rejected where the record discloses a prima facie case requiring trial.

---