Skip to content


KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique Vs. Asstt. Coll. of Customs - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCustoms
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application No. 952 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1989(24)ECC40; 1989(22)LC242(Bombay); 1989(41)ELT185(Bom)
ActsCustoms Act, 1962 - Sections 123 and 135(1)
AppellantKamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique
RespondentAsstt. Coll. of Customs
Appellant AdvocatePrabha Mane, Adv. for ;Km. S.D. Kolhe, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.B. Kher and ;C.M. Kothari, Public Prosecutors
Excerpt:
.....held per incuriam]. - 4. miss mane appearing for the applicants submitted that the sanction itself is bad in law inasmuch as the appellate authority under the customs act has exonerated the accused. it is well settled that an enquiry under the customs act is not a prosecution and, therefore, it cannot be said that the vice of double jeopardy would ever apply to a case of this type......by accused nos. 1 and 2 to have the prosecution against them quashed on the ground that in a customs enquiry they have been let off.2. the brief facts are as follows : on 18th august 1979, the police officers of bhiwandi police station accosted the accused while they were in an ambassador car. they were arrested under the customs act and a complaint has been filed against them under section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) punishable under clause(ii) of sub-section (1) of section 135 of the customs act. the case has been filed after obtaining a sanction in that behalf on 16th october, 1981. in the meanwhile, in the enquiry proceedings held by the customs authorities, the additional collector of customs, bombay, initially imposed a penalty of rs. 2000/- on each of the accused. the accused.....
Judgment:

H. Suresh, J.

1. This is an application by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to have the prosecution against them quashed on the ground that in a Customs enquiry they have been let off.

2. The brief facts are as follows : On 18th August 1979, the Police Officers of Bhiwandi Police Station accosted the Accused while they were in an Ambassador Car. They were arrested under the Customs Act and a complaint has been filed against them under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) punishable under Clause(ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 135 of the Customs Act. The case has been filed after obtaining a sanction in that behalf on 16th October, 1981. In the meanwhile, in the enquiry proceedings held by the Customs authorities, the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, initially imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- on each of the Accused. The Accused preferred an Appeal and by an Order dated 11th December, 1981, the Order of imposition of the penalty was set aside and the Appeal was allowed.

3. Relying on this Order, the Accused made an application before the learned Magistrate at Bhiwandi for quashing the proceedings. The learned Magistrate by his Order dated 15th February, 1985 dismissed the said application. The present application is against the said Order of the learned Magistrate.

4. Miss Mane appearing for the Applicants submitted that the sanction itself is bad in law inasmuch as the Appellate Authority under the Customs Act has exonerated the Accused. She also submitted that, in any event, since the Accused have been exonerated under the Customs Act and seizure of the goods is not under the Customs Act, the prosecution can not rely on the presumption that is provided under Section 123 of the Customs Act. It is not necessary for me to go into these questions at this stage as all these questions will be considered by the learned Magistrate as and when he proceeds with the case.

5. The only limited question is whether the learned Magistrate was not right in refusing to grant an application for quashing the proceedings. It is well settled that an enquiry under the Customs Act is not a prosecution and, therefore, it cannot be said that the vice of double jeopardy would ever apply to a case of this type. In the result, I find nothing wrong with the Order passed by the learned Magistrate on 15.2.1985.1, therefore, pass the following order:

ORDER

Rule discharged. Stay, if any, granted, stands vacated.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //