Quashing of process for lack of prima facie Customs Act ingredients where only co-accused statements and a ticket booking were relied on.

Where the complaint and investigation material, taken at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged Customs Act offence against the accused, the High Court held that inherent jurisdiction could be exercised to quash the process. The only incriminating material was statements of co-accused, which are not substantive evidence and can only corroborate an otherwise established case. A further allegation that the accused arranged an air-ticket did not, by itself, connect her to any attempt to export foreign exchange or provide the essential link for prosecution. The process was therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the process issued against the petitioner for alleged conspiracy to export foreign exchange under the Customs Act disclosed a prima facie case warranting prosecution.

Analysis: The only material against the petitioner consisted of statements of co-accused, which were relevant but not substantive evidence and could only lend assurance to an otherwise established prosecution case. The remaining circumstance, namely the petitioner's role in arranging an air-ticket for one accused, did not by itself connect her with any attempt to export foreign exchange or supply the essential link to attract the Customs Act offences. On the materials collected during investigation, the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence against the petitioner, and the case fell within the category where interference in inherent jurisdiction is justified.

Conclusion: The process issued against the petitioner was quashed and the application was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution could not be sustained against the petitioner on the recorded material, as the allegations did not establish the statutory ingredients of the Customs Act offence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the complaint and investigation material, taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence against an accused, the High Court may quash the process in exercise of inherent jurisdiction; co-accused statements alone cannot substitute for independent incriminating material.

---