2023 (11) TMI 1065 - HC - Customs

High Court Grants Interim Stay on Customs Act Order, Proceedings Pending Further Hearings on Quashing Petition.

Pawan Kant Versus Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

The HC addressed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash an Impugned Complaint and Order under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner sought to ... Principles of natural justice - impugned complaint for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) read with 135(1)(i)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, passed in a mechanical manner, without observing any reasons - summoning order passed without giving any reasons for the same - HELD THAT:- Considering the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, especially the fact that the summoning order has been passed without giving any reasons for the same, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, the matter requires consideration. Further, in the opinion of this Court, considering that the petitioner has been exonerated by the learned CESTAT on the same set of facts and this fact has not been disclosed before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner herein has been able to make out a case for grant of interim protection. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned order passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - 01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Ct. Cases No. 2012/2022 and all proceedings emanating therefrom pending before the ACMM-01, shall remain stayed qua the petitioner, till the next date of hearing - Accordingly, renotify on 21.02.2024. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are related to a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash an Impugned Complaint and Order under the Customs Act, 1962.Issue 1: Quashing of Impugned Complaint and Order- Details: The petitioner sought the quashing of the Impugned Complaint and Order pending before the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in New Delhi. The respondent accepted notice and indicated the intention to file a Special Leave Petition against a related order. The parties were directed to file a written synopsis within a specified period.- Decision: Issue notice was accepted, and the respondent was granted time to file a reply. The case was renotified for a future date.Issue 2: Stay of Impugned Order and Proceedings- Details: The petitioner sought a stay of the Impugned Order and proceedings related to alleged offenses under the Customs Act, 1962. The senior counsel argued that the summoning order was passed mechanically without considering relevant exonerating facts. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court findings and Customs Manual provisions to support the request for stay.- Decision: The Court noted the similarity between the Impugned Complaint and a previous exoneration order by CESTAT. It was observed that relevant information was not disclosed before the Trial Court. Considering these factors, the Court found a prima facie case for interim protection and granted a stay on the operation of the Impugned Order and proceedings pending further hearing.Separate Judgment by Judge:- There was no separate judgment delivered by a specific judge in this case.This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the judgment, including the specific reliefs sought, arguments presented, and decisions made by the Court regarding quashing the Impugned Complaint and Order, as well as granting a stay on the proceedings.