Quashing of customs prosecution for lack of essential ingredients where only co-accused statements and no independent material existed.

Criminal process under the Customs Act can be quashed where the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. Statements of co-accused are not substantive evidence and can only lend limited assurance; an ancillary act such as arranging an air ticket, without independent material connecting the accused to an attempt to export foreign exchange in violation of the Act, is insufficient. On the complaint as a whole, the allegations at most suggested conduct linked to foreign exchange procurement, not the specific Customs Act offence alleged. The inherent jurisdiction was therefore properly exercised and the process was quashed for want of a prima facie case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal process issued against the petitioner for alleged offences under the Customs Act was liable to be quashed for want of material disclosing the essential ingredients of the offence.

Analysis: The only material against the petitioner consisted of statements of co-accused, which could at best lend assurance to the prosecution case and were not substantive evidence in themselves, together with the fact that she had arranged an air ticket for one accused. On the complaint as a whole, there was no independent connecting material showing that the petitioner was involved in any attempt to export foreign exchange in violation of the Customs Act. Even if the statements were taken at face value, they pointed, at the highest, to conduct relatable to foreign exchange procurement, not to the offence alleged under the Customs Act. The allegations, therefore, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence and fell within the category where interference in inherent jurisdiction was justified.

Conclusion: The process issued against the petitioner was rightly quashed, as no prima facie case under the Customs Act was made out against her.

---