Court dismisses prosecution under Customs Act due to lack of evidence, jurisdiction issues, and limitation constraints.

The court found that the petitioners were not liable to be prosecuted under Section 132 of the Customs Act as there was no evidence of false declaration or document. Additionally, prosecution under Section 135(1)(a) was deemed invalid due to the goods' value being below the required threshold. The court upheld the territorial jurisdiction of the learned CMM and declared the sanction for prosecution as invalid. The complaint was barred by limitation, and the summoning order was issued without sufficient evidence. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the criminal complaint and all related proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of prosecution under Section 132 of the Customs Act.
2. Validity of prosecution under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act.
3. Territorial jurisdiction of the learned CMM.
4. Validity of the sanction for prosecution.
5. Limitation period for filing the complaint.
6. Sufficiency of evidence for summoning the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Prosecution under Section 132 of the Customs Act:
The petitioners argued that no false declaration or document was made, signed, or used by them knowingly, which is a prerequisite for prosecution under Section 132 of the Act. The court found that there was no evidence showing that the petitioners made any false declaration or prepared false documents. Therefore, they were not liable to be prosecuted under Section 132.

2. Validity of Prosecution under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act:
The petitioners contended that the market value of the goods was less than Rs.1 Crore, which is a requirement for prosecution under Section 135(1)(a). The court noted that the collective value of the goods was determined to be Rs.77,16,288/- by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and that this order had attained finality as no appeal was filed against it. Therefore, prosecution under Section 135(1)(a) was not valid.

3. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Learned CMM:
The petitioners argued that the learned CMM did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The court found that the notification of the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court conferred jurisdiction to the criminal courts at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, for violations of the Customs Act. Therefore, the learned CMM had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4. Validity of the Sanction for Prosecution:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the sanction for prosecution, arguing that it was a result of non-application of mind and was mechanical in nature. The court agreed, finding that the sanction by the Additional Director, DRI, was invalid and void-ab-initio as it did not specify the basis on which the decision to prosecute was made.

5. Limitation Period for Filing the Complaint:
The petitioners contended that the complaint was barred by limitation. The court noted that the punishment for violating Section 132 could extend to six months, and the limitation period as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is one year. Since the incident occurred in 2009 and the complaint was filed in 2013, the court found that the complaint was indeed barred by limitation.

6. Sufficiency of Evidence for Summoning the Accused:
The court observed that the learned CMM dispensed with the examination of the complainant and other witnesses, which was not appropriate. It was the duty of the respondent to prove its case against the petitioners with sufficient evidence. The court found that the summoning order was issued without any material on record for prima facie satisfaction.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned orders summoning the petitioners and dismissing the criminal revision were bad in law. The summoning order dated 5th March 2014 and the order dated 29th July 2016 were set aside. Consequently, the criminal complaint bearing CC No.75/1/2013 filed under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed. The petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. The judgment was ordered to be uploaded on the website forthwith.

---