Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 departmental proceedings under the Customs Act were required to be stayed pending the criminal case on the ground of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and possible self-incrimination, and whether the summons of a petitioner as a witness warranted interference.
Analysis: Proceedings under the Customs Act are not criminal proceedings, and the mere issuance of a show-cause notice does not amount to testimonial compulsion. The protection under Article 20(3) is not attracted at the stage of adjudication merely because the petitioners may have to place their defence before the customs authorities. Even if a person is examined as a witness in such proceedings, voluntary evidence given in defence does not by itself constitute compulsion within Article 20(3). As to compelled answers, Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act affords protection, and the proviso prevents compelled answers from being used in subsequent criminal proceedings. The Customs Authorities were also found to have exercised their discretion properly in declining to stay the proceedings.
Conclusion: The request for stay was rejected, and the departmental proceedings under the Customs Act were permitted to continue.