1978 (7) TMI 107 - HC - Customs

Order to report to Investigating Officer upheld; Customs can summon independently, Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination

KK. GOENKA Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE

HC upheld the Magistrate's order requiring the petitioner to report to the Investigating Officer, discharging the rule challenging that direction. The ... Summons - Powers of the Customs authorities - Evidence Issues:1. Validity of the order directing the petitioner to report to the Investigating Officer.2. Alleged violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India by the Customs authorities.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of the order directing the petitioner to report to the Investigating OfficerThe judgment revolves around the legality of an order issued by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to report to the Investigating Officer at specified intervals. The petitioner's counsel argued that this order was in contravention of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, claiming potential prejudice due to interrogation by Customs authorities. However, the opposing counsel and the State supported the Magistrate's order. The Court noted that Customs authorities were conducting inquiries under section 107 of the Customs Act, 1962, granting them the independent power to summon individuals for evidence or document production. This power was separate from any directions given by the Magistrate. The Court clarified that the Customs authorities retained the authority to summon individuals despite serving show cause notices or being directed to file a complaint by the Magistrate. The judgment emphasized that individuals could still refuse to answer questions that might incriminate them, safeguarded by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.Issue 2: Alleged violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India by the Customs authoritiesThe petitioner contended that the Customs authorities' actions might lead to self-incrimination, breaching Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The Court acknowledged the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, emphasizing that individuals could decline to answer questions that might implicate them during inquiries by Customs authorities. The judgment clarified the distinction between statements made before the Police and Customs officers, highlighting the admissibility of statements as evidence in the latter case. However, the Court affirmed that individuals retained the right to refuse to answer questions that could potentially self-incriminate them, ensuring compliance with Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Ultimately, the Court discharged the Rule, upholding the validity of the order directing the petitioner to report to the Investigating Officer.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the concerns raised regarding potential self-incrimination during inquiries by Customs authorities, reaffirming the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination and clarifying the powers of Customs officers to summon individuals for evidence or document production independently of Magisterial directions.