2002 (4) TMI 92 - HC - Customs

Court quashes charges against Trilok Nath Mittal, rejects Pawan Kumar Gupta's petition

The court quashed the criminal proceedings against one petitioner, Trilok Nath Mittal, as he was found not involved in the customs duty evasion. However, ... Prosecution - Quashing of proceedings Issues Involved:1. Quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 132, 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), and 136 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Admissibility and voluntariness of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.3. Applicability of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) for quashing proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:The petitioners sought quashing of the criminal proceedings against them for alleged offenses under Sections 132, 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), and 136 of the Customs Act. The court noted that the petitioners were accused in a case involving the illegal import and misdeclaration of ball bearings. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of ball bearings worth Rs. 3.60 crores and the statements of the petitioners recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.The petitioners argued that they were merely commission agents and had no involvement in the import or clearance of the goods. They contended that they were unaware of any customs duty evasion and that their statements were obtained under duress. The court examined whether the allegations against the petitioners, even if taken at face value, disclosed any offense under the relevant sections of the Customs Act.2. Admissibility and Voluntariness of Statements:The court addressed the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It was argued that these statements were obtained under duress and should not be considered voluntary. The court referred to various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Sevantilal Karsondas Modi v. The State of Maharashtra, which held that retracted confessions recorded under the Customs Act are unsafe to rely upon as voluntary and trustworthy.The court also noted that while statements under Section 108 are admissible in evidence, their voluntariness is crucial. The petitioners claimed that their statements were recorded under threat and physical coercion, and one petitioner, Trilok Nath Mittal, had retracted his statement at the earliest opportunity.3. Applicability of Section 482 Cr. P.C.:The court considered whether it was appropriate to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The prosecution argued that the High Court should not interfere at the initial stage and referred to several Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that quashing should only be done when the allegations do not disclose any offense. The court cited the case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, which outlined the circumstances under which inherent powers for quashing could be exercised.The court acknowledged that while shifting and appreciating evidence is not permissible under Section 482 Cr. P.C., if the allegations do not prima facie make out any offense, the proceedings can be quashed. The court found that the statements of the petitioners, even if taken at face value, did not establish their involvement in the fraudulent evasion of customs duty or possession of the goods.Separate Judgments:The court delivered separate judgments for the two petitioners:For Trilok Nath Mittal:The court concluded that the goods never came into his possession, and he was not involved in the fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of customs duty. Therefore, the proceedings against Trilok Nath Mittal were quashed.For Pawan Kumar Gupta:The court noted that Pawan Kumar Gupta was arrested while attempting to flee during the raid, indicating potential possession of the goods. The court held that this matter required further evidence and could not be quashed at this stage. Thus, the petition of Pawan Kumar Gupta was rejected.Conclusion:The proceedings against Trilok Nath Mittal were quashed, while the petition of Pawan Kumar Gupta was rejected, allowing the case against him to proceed.