Discharge in warrant-case complaint proceedings fails where prima facie case exists; customs statement stays admissible without summons

In a warrant case instituted on a complaint, refusal of discharge under Section 245 was not open to revisional interference where the record disclosed a prima facie case and sufficient grounds to frame charge. The court also held that a statement voluntarily made by an authorised agent before customs authorities remained admissible; Section 108 does not require prior issuance of a summons as a condition precedent, and Section 107 permits examination of persons acquainted with the facts. The revision was rejected and the Magistrate's proceedings were allowed to continue for framing of charge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petition challenging refusal of discharge under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable and whether the accused had shown grounds for discharge; (ii) Whether the statement of the authorised agent recorded by the customs authorities was inadmissible because no summons had been issued under the Customs Act.

Issue (i): Whether the revision petition challenging refusal of discharge under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable and whether the accused had shown grounds for discharge.

Analysis: The proceedings were a warrant case instituted on a complaint, and after evidence under Section 244, the Magistrate had already considered and rejected the plea for discharge. The accused had also cross-examined the prosecution witnesses at the preliminary stage. On the materials, the court found strong prima facie evidence that the first accused was not the actual importer and that there were sufficient grounds to frame charge against the petitioner.

Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of discharge failed and the revisional interference was unwarranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the statement of the authorised agent recorded by the customs authorities was inadmissible because no summons had been issued under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The court held that Section 108 of the Customs Act confers power to summon persons, but it does not make issuance of a summons a condition precedent to recording or relying upon a statement. Section 107 also empowers examination of persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. A voluntary appearance and statement by an authorised agent could therefore be relied upon, and the document of authorisation had been admitted without objection.

Conclusion: The statement was admissible and could be relied upon against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected on both maintainability and merits, and the proceedings before the Magistrate were allowed to continue for framing of charge.

Ratio Decidendi: In a warrant case instituted on a complaint, refusal of discharge under Section 245 is not open to interference where the record discloses a prima facie case, and a statement voluntarily made before customs authorities by an authorised person is not rendered inadmissible merely because no summons under Section 108 was issued.

---