1. Statements recorded under Section 108 Customs Act and Section 40 FERA — Writ petitions for habeas corpus to prevent use of statements in prosecution. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 513
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N.Ray : G.T.Nanavati
Union Of India
Versus
Nsr Krishna Prasad
Case No. : 44 , 45 of 1992
Date of Decision : 3/18/97
Advocates Appeared: Rao Subba
Writ petitions cannot be used to preemptively block the use of statutory statements for prosecution; such objections must be raised during the proceedings. Furthermore, periods of litigation in higher courts are excluded when computing statutory periods under Section 110 of the Customs Act.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 108; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Section 40 - Statements recorded by officers - Writ petition for habeas corpus to prevent use of statements for prosecution - High Court should not entertain such application to prevent statutory statements from being used for launching prosecution or penal action - Aggrieved parties are at liberty to raise objections to such statements as admissible in law during the actual proceedings. (Para 1)
(B) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 110 - Computation of period - Period during which cases remain pending in High Courts or the Supreme Court due to stay orders or litigation, without fault of the department, shall be excluded while computing the period under Section 110 and other relevant provisions. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Statements were recorded by concerned officers under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Writ petitions in the nature of habeas corpus were filed praying that such statements should not be used for launching any prosecution or penal action. The High Court had passed an order in favor of the petitioners, which was subsequently challenged.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in entertaining the applications and passing the impugned judgment. The order is set aside, although the court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues: Whether a writ petition can be maintained to prevent statements recorded under statutory provisions from being used as evidence in subsequent prosecution or penal actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions to preemptively block the use of statements recorded under statutory authority; any legal objections regarding the admissibility or use of such statements must be raised by the aggrieved parties during the actual prosecution or penal proceedings.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether writ petitions for habeas corpus are maintainable to prevent statements recorded under customs and foreign exchange laws from being used for prosecution. (Para 1 )
3. The High Court erred in entertaining writ petitions for habeas corpus to prevent the use of recorded statements for prosecution or penal action. (Para 1 )
4. Habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy to prevent the use of statements recorded under the Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. (Para 1 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court order set aside. (Para 1 )
6. Can a writ of habeas corpus be used to prevent statements recorded under the Customs Act and FERA from being used in prosecution?
No, the court held that the High Court should not have entertained such applications to prevent recorded statements from being used for launching prosecution or penal action. (Para 1 )
7. How is the period for computing limitation under Section 110 of the Customs Act affected by pending litigation?
If stay orders are passed and matters remain pending through no fault of the Union of India departments, the entire period pending in courts is excluded from the computation. (Para 2 )
(1) IN these appeals, the order passed by the A. P. High court in Writ Petition Nos. 3103 of 1991 and 3104 of 1991 is under challenge. It appears that statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act and Section 40 under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were recorded by the concerned officers. It was at this stage, one of the person making such statement and the wife of another person making the statement, moved writ petitions praying for issue of writ in the nature of habeas corpus so that the" statements so recorded could not be used for the purpose of launching any prosecution or any penal action could be taken under any enactment or enactments in force. In our view, the High court should not have entertained such application and pass the impugned judgment. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High court by allowing these appeals. It is, however, made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and if any action is taken pursuant to such statements, it would be open to the aggrieved parties to raise such objection including the objection-praised before the High court in respect of the said statements as may be admissible in law.
(2) MR. Subba Rao, learned counsel has drawn our attention to an observation made by this court in Poolpandi v. Supdt. of central Excise and Ors. 1992 (60 E.L.T. 24 (S.G.)= 1992 (3 SCR 247 wherein it has been observed by this court that if during the litigation, orders of stay have been passed from time to time and the matters have remained pending for no fault on the part of the concerned departments of the Union of India, the entire period for which the cases have remained pending either in this court or in the High courts shall be excluded while computing the period under Section 110 of the Customs Act and the other relevant provisions. It is not necessary for this court to make any observation because it will be open to the parties to cite the said decision if in the facts and circumstances of the case, such decision is applicable. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
