2022 (8) TMI 341 - HC - Customs

Court quashes proceedings for premature cognizance under Customs Act, stresses evidence importance before charging.

The Court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2017 under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act as the Magistrate prematurely took cognizance without ... Power to discharge at previous stage under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. - taking cognizance as authoritative notice of allegations - previous stage of the case (Sections 200-204 and prior to completion of prosecution evidence) - requirement of judicial application of mind before issuance of processPower to discharge at previous stage under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. - taking cognizance as authoritative notice of allegations - requirement of judicial application of mind before issuance of process - Validity of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons without examining witnesses or otherwise applying judicial mind in the complaint under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the offence alleged being a warrant case made the provisions of Section 245 Cr.P.C. applicable, and that Section 245(2) empowers a Magistrate to discharge an accused at any previous stage if the charge is groundless. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decisions in Ajoy Kumar Ghose and Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia to explain that 'taking cognizance' is a concept of wide import and that the 'previous stage' spans from presentation under Section 200 through the stages up to completion of prosecution evidence under Section 244. However, those authorities also require that the Magistrate must have applied judicial mind or taken authoritative notice of the allegations before issuing process. In the present case the learned Magistrate, without recording sworn statements or otherwise conducting the inquiries contemplated at the initial stage, merely received the complaint and straightaway issued summons. The Court found no application of mind or commencement of the Section 200 stage, and therefore concluded that cognizance in the sense necessary to sustain issuance of process had not in fact occurred. For these reasons the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance and issuing summons before the procedure under Sections 200-204 Cr.P.C. was properly followed. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]Proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2017 as against the petitioners are quashed; the learned Magistrate is at liberty to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law and the petitioners may file an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. in the manner known to law.Final Conclusion: The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the cognizance and summons issued in C.C.No.73 of 2017 are set aside for failure by the Magistrate to apply judicial mind and to follow the preliminary procedural stages; the Magistrate may re proceed in accordance with law and the petitioners remain entitled to seek discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. Issues:Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2017 under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act without examining witnesses and following Cr.P.C. provisions.Analysis:The petition sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2017, where the respondent alleged the transportation of foreign-origin gold biscuits. The respondent intercepted a vehicle carrying gold biscuits valued at Rs.4,52,40,000. The petitioners argued that the Magistrate issued summons without examining witnesses, contrary to Cr.P.C. provisions. The offense under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act carries a maximum punishment of seven years, making it a warrant case. Section 245 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused if the charge is groundless.The petitioners contended that the Magistrate prematurely took cognizance without following the Cr.P.C. provisions. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, they argued that the Magistrate must examine witnesses before framing charges. The judgment highlighted the stages from Section 200 to 204 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the importance of evidence before charging the accused. The petitioners emphasized the need for a proper examination of witnesses before issuing summons.The judgment discussed the wide import of the term 'cognizance' in the context of Cr.P.C. It emphasized that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and take authoritative notice of the allegations before issuing process. The Magistrate's action of taking cognizance without examining witnesses was deemed premature. The judgment clarified that the phrase 'at any previous stage of the case' refers to a case where cognizance has been taken, which had not occurred in this instance.Consequently, the Court held that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance before recording the statements of the petitioners. The proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2017 were quashed, allowing the Magistrate to proceed lawfully. The petitioners were granted the liberty to file a petition under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.