TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is allowed and the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2. Amended Memo of Parties (Annexure C1) is taken on record. CRM-M No.6862 of 2019 (O&M) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 438 of the of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is anticipating his arrest in compliance of the non-bailable warrants issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar in a custom case pertaining to seizure of 27 gold bars at International Check Post (ICP) Attari, Amritsar. Brief facts of the case as set up in the present petition are that the petitioner is a proprietor of M/s. Universal Solutions situated in 81-Kanganheri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s found in the consignment and it was immediately seized. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the contents of the consignment, which was sealed at Afghanistan and as per the set norms, the goods sent from Afghanistan are received at Attari Border through transit in Pakistan and if the seal is broken, the same are not accepted by the Customs Officials. It is further stated that since the seal was intact, therefore, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and he was not aware about the contents inside the consginment as he was under bona fide belief that apples and pomegranates are being imported. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further argued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner has already joined the investigation and he is not required for further investigation. It is worth noticing that the present petition was filed by impleading the State of Punjab as a respondent, however, the application i.e. CRM No.7363 of 2019, was moved by the Customs Authorities for being impleaded them as a party and similarly, another application i.e. CRM No.7368 of 2019 was moved for cancellation/modification of the order dated 14.02.2019 vide which the interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner. As noticed above, the application i.e. CRM No.7363 of 2019 has already been allowed. Counsel appearing for the complainant i.e. Customs Authorities, has relied upon various documents to submit that at the first insta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter, the petitioner when appeared before the Customs Authorities on 21.02.2019, was given a long questionnaires in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him including the call details, in which the petitioner had admitted many facts (on request of counsel appearing for the complainant i.e. Customs Authorities, that this may relate to serious security concern and may affect investigation), the same are not being referred, however, I have gone through the questionnaire put to the petitioner in which the telephonic conversation/transcription was put to him and he could not give reply for passing of crores of rupees as per this conversation with one Mohd. Yusuf of Afghanistan. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that custodi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Custom Officer under the Customs Act or under FERA Act is not permissible and if such permission is not granted, the same not in violation of the Section 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the complainant has further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court "Anil Shoor vs Union of India", 2002(3) RCR (Criminal) 735, to submit that where a Custom Officer is summoning a person for enquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act regarding smuggling of goods, such enquiry is deemed as judicial proceedings within the ambit of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the anticipatory bail was declined. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence so collected by the Customs Autho....