1988 (2) TMI 71 - HC - Customs

Court upholds decision to frame charges in criminal case involving heroin export disguised as canned seafood

The court dismissed a petition under Section 482 to quash charges framed in a criminal case involving the export of Heroin disguised as canned crab meat ... Export - Illicit export - Offence - Framing of charge - Customs - Evidence Issues:Petition under Section 482 to quash charges framed in C.C. 65/85 involving export of Heroin disguised as canned crab meat and canned shrimps under various sections including Dangerous Drugs Act, Customs Act, and IPC. Allegation of using a fictitious name for export. Challenge on the admissibility of evidence and the requirement of examining officers of U.K. Customs before framing charges. Interpretation of Sections 245 and 246 of the Code concerning framing of charges based on prima facie evidence. Analysis of the sufficiency of evidence to frame charges and the scope of consideration at the stage of framing charges.Analysis:The case involved a petition under Section 482 seeking to quash charges framed in a criminal case related to the export of Heroin disguised as canned crab meat and canned shrimps. The petitioner and others were accused of exporting Heroin valued at approximately Rs. 25 lakhs under a fictitious name. The prosecution relied on evidence including witness testimonies, documents, and investigations to establish the case. The petitioner challenged the admissibility of evidence and the necessity of examining U.K. Customs officers before framing charges.The court considered the requirements under Section 245 of the Code, which mandates framing charges if there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offense. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the focus is on establishing a prima facie case, not on proving the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court cited precedents to support the notion that the threshold for framing charges is lower than that required for conviction, emphasizing the need for only prima facie material to presume guilt.Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the court noted that the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and documentary exhibits, provided a basis for framing charges. The court highlighted that the depth of consideration at the stage of framing charges is minimal compared to the scrutiny required at the trial stage. The court clarified that the magistrate can frame charges based on prima facie evidence, even if the admissibility or truth of certain statements is in question.Ultimately, the court found that there was enough material to frame charges against the petitioner and others involved in the case. The court concluded that the lower court was justified in framing charges based on the evidence presented, and the petition under Section 482 to quash the charges was dismissed. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of consideration required at the stage of framing charges and the importance of establishing prima facie grounds for presuming the accused's involvement in an offense.