Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is bailable or non-bailable, and whether a person arrested for such offence can be remanded to judicial custody.
Analysis: The offence under Section 135(1)(ii) carries imprisonment that may extend to three years, or fine, or both. The Customs Act declares offences under the Act to be non-cognizable under Section 104(4), and Section 138 contemplates summary trial by a Magistrate. Reading these provisions with the scheme of the criminal procedure classification of offences, the Court held that a non-cognizable offence punishable in this manner falls within the category of bailable offences. The Court also distinguished authorities dealing with the graver form of offence under Section 135(1)(i) read with Section 123, and relied upon the contemporaneous Customs Manual as supporting the same construction.
Conclusion: The offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is bailable and non-cognizable, and the Magistrate could not direct judicial custody on that basis.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes an offence non-cognizable and prescribes punishment of imprisonment up to three years or fine or both, the offence is to be treated as bailable, particularly when the statute also provides for summary trial.