Semantic Analysis by spaCy
KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique Vs. Asstt. Coll. of Customs
Decided On : Jan-12-1989
Court : Mumbai
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique Vs. Asstt. Coll. of Customs Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 1 => 'Section 135(1)(a', (int) 2 => 'Section 135', (int) 3 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 4 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 5 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 6 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 123 of the Customs Act', (int) 8 => 'the Customs Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'H. Suresh', (int) 1 => 'Accused Nos', (int) 2 => 'Car', (int) 3 => 'Accused', (int) 4 => 'Order', (int) 5 => 'Order', (int) 6 => 'Order', (int) 7 => 'Order', (int) 8 => 'Mane', (int) 9 => 'Order' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '135(1)(b', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '2000/-' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Customs', (int) 1 => 'off.2', (int) 2 => 'Bhiwandi Police Station', (int) 3 => 'Customs', (int) 4 => 'the Additional Collector of Customs', (int) 5 => 'Appeal', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate at Bhiwandi', (int) 7 => 'Magistrate', (int) 8 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 9 => 'Magistrate', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'Magistrate' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '18th August 1979', (int) 1 => '16th October, 1981', (int) 2 => '11th December, 1981', (int) 3 => '15th February, 1985', (int) 4 => '15.2.1985.1' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Police Officers of' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Accused', (int) 1 => 'Bombay', (int) 2 => 'Accused' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Accused' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '359343', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 123 and 135(1)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Application No. 952 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique Vs. Asstt. Coll. of Customs', 'casenote' => 'Doable Jeopardy inapplicable as enquiry under Customs Act is not prosecution. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom of investigation is the essence of these provisions but in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R 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.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Prabha Mane, Adv. for ;Km. S.D. Kolhe, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'S.B. Kher and ;C.M. Kothari, Public Prosecutors', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1989-01-12', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H. Suresh, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H. Suresh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule discharged. Stay, if any, granted, stands vacated.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1989(24)ECC40; 1989(22)LC242(Bombay); 1989(41)ELT185(Bom)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Asstt. Coll. of Customs', 'sub' => 'Customs', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '359343' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique Vs. Asstt. Coll. of Customs Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 1 => 'Section 135(1)(a', (int) 2 => 'Section 135', (int) 3 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 4 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 5 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 6 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 123 of the Customs Act', (int) 8 => 'the Customs Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'H. Suresh', (int) 1 => 'Accused Nos', (int) 2 => 'Car', (int) 3 => 'Accused', (int) 4 => 'Order', (int) 5 => 'Order', (int) 6 => 'Order', (int) 7 => 'Order', (int) 8 => 'Mane', (int) 9 => 'Order' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '135(1)(b', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '2000/-' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Customs', (int) 1 => 'off.2', (int) 2 => 'Bhiwandi Police Station', (int) 3 => 'Customs', (int) 4 => 'the Additional Collector of Customs', (int) 5 => 'Appeal', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate at Bhiwandi', (int) 7 => 'Magistrate', (int) 8 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 9 => 'Magistrate', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'Magistrate' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '18th August 1979', (int) 1 => '16th October, 1981', (int) 2 => '11th December, 1981', (int) 3 => '15th February, 1985', (int) 4 => '15.2.1985.1' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Police Officers of' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Accused', (int) 1 => 'Bombay', (int) 2 => 'Accused' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Accused' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '359343', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 123 and 135(1)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Application No. 952 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique Vs. Asstt. Coll. of Customs', 'casenote' => 'Doable Jeopardy inapplicable as enquiry under Customs Act is not prosecution. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom of investigation is the essence of these provisions but in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R 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.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Prabha Mane, Adv. for ;Km. S.D. Kolhe, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'S.B. Kher and ;C.M. Kothari, Public Prosecutors', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1989-01-12', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H. Suresh, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H. Suresh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule discharged. Stay, if any, granted, stands vacated.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1989(24)ECC40; 1989(22)LC242(Bombay); 1989(41)ELT185(Bom)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Asstt. Coll. of Customs', 'sub' => 'Customs', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '359343' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique Vs. Asstt. Coll. of Customs Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 1 => 'Section 135(1)(a', (int) 2 => 'Section 135', (int) 3 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 4 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 5 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 6 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 123 of the Customs Act', (int) 8 => 'the Customs Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'H. Suresh', (int) 1 => 'Accused Nos', (int) 2 => 'Car', (int) 3 => 'Accused', (int) 4 => 'Order', (int) 5 => 'Order', (int) 6 => 'Order', (int) 7 => 'Order', (int) 8 => 'Mane', (int) 9 => 'Order' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '135(1)(b', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '2000/-' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Customs', (int) 1 => 'off.2', (int) 2 => 'Bhiwandi Police Station', (int) 3 => 'Customs', (int) 4 => 'the Additional Collector of Customs', (int) 5 => 'Appeal', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate at Bhiwandi', (int) 7 => 'Magistrate', (int) 8 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 9 => 'Magistrate', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'Magistrate' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '18th August 1979', (int) 1 => '16th October, 1981', (int) 2 => '11th December, 1981', (int) 3 => '15th February, 1985', (int) 4 => '15.2.1985.1' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Police Officers of' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Accused', (int) 1 => 'Bombay', (int) 2 => 'Accused' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Accused' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '359343', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 123 and 135(1)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Application No. 952 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique Vs. Asstt. Coll. of Customs', 'casenote' => 'Doable Jeopardy inapplicable as enquiry under Customs Act is not prosecution. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom of investigation is the essence of these provisions but in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R 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.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Prabha Mane, Adv. for ;Km. S.D. Kolhe, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'S.B. Kher and ;C.M. Kothari, Public Prosecutors', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1989-01-12', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H. Suresh, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H. Suresh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule discharged. Stay, if any, granted, stands vacated.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1989(24)ECC40; 1989(22)LC242(Bombay); 1989(41)ELT185(Bom)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Asstt. Coll. of Customs', 'sub' => 'Customs', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '359343' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique Vs. Asstt. Coll. of Customs Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 1 => 'Section 135(1)(a', (int) 2 => 'Section 135', (int) 3 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 4 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 5 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 6 => 'the Customs Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 123 of the Customs Act', (int) 8 => 'the Customs Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'H. Suresh', (int) 1 => 'Accused Nos', (int) 2 => 'Car', (int) 3 => 'Accused', (int) 4 => 'Order', (int) 5 => 'Order', (int) 6 => 'Order', (int) 7 => 'Order', (int) 8 => 'Mane', (int) 9 => 'Order' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '135(1)(b', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '2000/-' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Customs', (int) 1 => 'off.2', (int) 2 => 'Bhiwandi Police Station', (int) 3 => 'Customs', (int) 4 => 'the Additional Collector of Customs', (int) 5 => 'Appeal', (int) 6 => 'Magistrate at Bhiwandi', (int) 7 => 'Magistrate', (int) 8 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 9 => 'Magistrate', (int) 10 => 'Magistrate', (int) 11 => 'Magistrate' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '18th August 1979', (int) 1 => '16th October, 1981', (int) 2 => '11th December, 1981', (int) 3 => '15th February, 1985', (int) 4 => '15.2.1985.1' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Police Officers of' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Accused', (int) 1 => 'Bombay', (int) 2 => 'Accused' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Accused' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '359343', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51922/customs-act-1962-complete-act">Customs Act, 1962</a> - Sections 123 and 135(1)', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Application No. 952 of 1985', 'appellant' => 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'KamaluddIn Mohd. AmIn Siddique Vs. Asstt. Coll. of Customs', 'casenote' => 'Doable Jeopardy inapplicable as enquiry under Customs Act is not prosecution. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom of investigation is the essence of these provisions but in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R 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.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Prabha Mane, Adv. for ;Km. S.D. Kolhe, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'S.B. Kher and ;C.M. Kothari, Public Prosecutors', 'court' => 'Mumbai', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1989-01-12', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H. Suresh, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">H. Suresh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">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:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule discharged. Stay, if any, granted, stands vacated.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1989(24)ECC40; 1989(22)LC242(Bombay); 1989(41)ELT185(Bom)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Asstt. Coll. of Customs', 'sub' => 'Customs', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '359343' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: the Customs Act, Section 135(1)(a, Section 135, the Customs Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Act, Section 123 of the Customs Act, the Customs Act
PERSON: H. Suresh, Accused Nos, Car, Accused, Order, Order, Order, Order, Mane, Order
NORP: J.1
CARDINAL: 1, 2, 135(1)(b, 1, 2000/-
ORG: Customs, off.2, Bhiwandi Police Station, Customs, the Additional Collector of Customs, Appeal, Magistrate at Bhiwandi, Magistrate, the Appellate Authority, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate
DATE: 18th August 1979, 16th October, 1981, 11th December, 1981, 15th February, 1985, 15.2.1985.1
PRODUCT: the Police Officers of
GPE: Accused, Bombay, Accused
LOC: Accused