LexUNION OF INDIA versus PADAM NARAIN AGGARWAL ETC
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 14 S.C.R. 179 >--.,, UNION OF INDIA A v. PADAM NARAIN AGGARWAL ETC. (Criminal Appeal No. 1575 of 2008) OCTOBER 3, 2008 B [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] ~- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 Anticipatory bail - Grant of by Courts of Law - Explained - Departmental proceedings by Customs Authorities - c Summons issued to accused to participate in investigation - Non-cooperation by the accused - Initiation of criminal proceedings at the instance of Customs Authorities - Accused seeking anticipatory bail - High Court holding the application as pre-mature anti ordering the accused to appear before the D ( Authority- However, it directed the Customs Authorities not to --< arrest the accused without ten days prior notice if accused found to have committed non-bailable offence - Held: High Court rightly held that the application for anticipatory bail was premature - The statements recorded u/s 108 of Customs Act E cannot be used against the accused - However, directions issued to Customs Authorities are illegal and invalid in as much it grants blanket protection to the accused and curtails the statutory power of the Authority- Exercise of power to grant ~ anticipatory bail is unusual and discretionary - Courts to F exercise such power only when it has reason to believe that the accused is likely to be arrested for a non-cognizable offence - Order granting anticipatory bail comes into operation only after the accused is arrested - Customs Act, 1962 - ss. 104 and 108. G Words and Phrases: __..-·1 'Anticipatory bail' and 'arrest' - Meaning of. 179 H 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A Customs department initiated proceedings under Customs Act, against the respondent. Summons were issued to the respondent so as to enable the Department to investigate the case. Since the respondent did not co- operate, Customs. Authorities filed complaints for B commission of offences u/ss. 17 4 and 175 IPC. Respondents filed applic.ations see~ing anticipatory bail and the same were dismissed. Respondent approached High Court, and it held that $ince the respondents were mere.ly summoned u/s. 108 of Customs Act, applications c for anticipatory bail were pre-mature. High Court ordered the respondents to appear before the Customs Authorities. However, it directed ~hat if Customs Authorities found that any non-bailable .offence had been committed by n~spondents, they shall not arrest the respondents without' (} ten days prior notice. Hence t~e present j'lppeal. ·Partly· allowing the appeal, the Gourt HELD: 1.1 The respondents were only summoned under Section tOB of Customs Act, 1962 for. recording of their statements.' The High' Court was conscious and' E mindful of ttiat fact. h, therefore, held that applications for anticipatory baii, in Jhe circumstances, were pre~mature. [Para 63] [205, B] · 1.2 Statements recorded ·u/s. 108 of Customs Act are F, distinct and different from statements recorded by Police Officers during the course of investigation. under Cr.P.C.. \~ Section · 108 does not contemplate .magisterial intervention. The power is exercised by a Gazetted Officer of~the Department. It obliges the person summoned to G state truth upon any subject respecting which. he is examined. He is not absolved from speaking truth on the ground that such statement is admissible in evidence and \-.... could be used against him. The provision. thus enables the officer to elicit truth from the person examined. The H underlying object of Section 108 is to ensure that the UNION OF INDIA v. PADAM NARAIN 181 AGGARWAL ETC. ,.., officer questioning the person gets all the truth concerning A the incident. [Paras 56 and 59] [204,B; 203,B-C] Ramesh Chandra Mehta v; State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 461- followed Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. B Duncan Agro Industries Ltd., (2000) 7 SCC 53- relied on 2.1 The order passed by the High Court to the extent of directions issued to the Custom Authorities is liable to be set aside. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the directions cannot be said to be legal, c valid or in consonance with law. Firstly, because the order passed by the High Court is a blanket one and seeks to grant protection to respondents in respect of any non- bailable offence. Secondly, becaus·e it illegally obstructs, interferes and curtails the authority of Custom Officers D ( from
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.