Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 524
High Court Of Calcutta
AMITAVA LALA
MAHENDRA JAIN (PATNI) - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
T. 118 Of 2002
Decided On : 08/08/2002
BHASKAR SEN, O.P.TRIVEDI, P.K.MALICK, SHIBDAS BANERJI, SVAPAN DUTTA, V.N.DWIVEDI
Customs Officers are not authorized to use coercive or third-degree methods during interrogation and interrogation should be conducted in a manner consistent with human dignity and comfort.
Headnote:
CUSTOMS ACT - SUMMONS - INTERROGATION - HUMAN RIGHTS - [SECTION 107, 108] - WRIT PETITION MAINTAINABLE TO CHALLENGE ARBITRARY AND INHUMAN INTERROGATION BY CUSTOMS OFFICERS. CUSTOMS OFFICERS NOT AUTHORIZED TO USE COERCIVE METHODS OR THIRD-DEGREE METHODS DURING INTERROGATION. INTERROGATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN DIGNITY AND COMFORT.
Fact of the Case:
Four writ petitions were filed by a company director, a transporter, a company director, and a customs clearing agent alleging torture and inhuman treatment by Customs Officers during interrogation in connection with an import-export investigation. The petitioners claimed that they were subjected to physical assault, forced to write false statements, and detained for prolonged periods without access to legal assistance or basic amenities.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable as the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, were violated by the arbitrary and inhuman interrogation methods employed by the Customs Officers. The court distinguished the Supreme Court judgment in Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise, which held that refusal to allow the presence of a lawyer during interrogation by Customs Officers did not violate Article 20(3) or 21 of the Constitution, on the grounds that the facts in the present case were different.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise. 2. Whether the Customs Officers were authorized to use coercive or third-degree methods during interrogation. 3. Whether the interrogation was conducted in a manner consistent with human dignity and comfort.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable as the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India were violated by the arbitrary and inhuman interrogation methods employed by the Customs Officers. The court distinguished the Supreme Court judgment in Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise on the grounds that the facts in the present case were different, including the lack of a prima facie case against the petitioners, the use of torture to extract evidence, and the denial of basic amenities and legal assistance to the petitioners. 2. The court held that the Customs Officers were not authorized to use coercive or third-degree methods during interrogation. The court relied on previous judgments which held that the provisions of the Customs Act do not authorize the use of such methods and that interrogation should be conducted in a manner consistent with human dignity and comfort. 3. The court held that the interrogation was not conducted in a manner consistent with human dignity and comfort. The court found that the petitioners were subjected to physical assault, forced to write false statements, and detained for prolonged periods without access to legal assistance or basic amenities.
Final Decision: The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable and that the Customs Officers had violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court directed that the writ petitions be relegated to the concerned Human Rights Commission for further action in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act.
( 1 ) THE first writ petition is made by a Director of the Company known as M/s. CEE An International Private Limited. According to him, on 12th February, 2002 at 12-30 p. m. some persons disclosed their identity as Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta Zonal Unit raided the office and searched the office premises. Since nothing was found after such search a list was handed over with the note 'nil'. On the same day search was also conducted at the residence of the petitioner and when again nothing was found there, the similar search list with the remark 'nil' was handed over. The petitioner was directed to appear in the Zonal Unit on the same day in connection with the enquiry relating to import of one M/s. Chessman Impex Private Limited. A summon was also served on the same day i. e. 12th February, 2002. The petitioner contended that he has got nothing to do in respect of the named company for which search was conducted and summon was issued. The direction in such summons requiring the presence of the petitioner before the appropriate authority on the same day at 5 p. m. was duly complied with.
( 2 ) THE other three writ petitions were made by one Sri Vikash Kumar Jain and others Sri Surendra Nath Gangwal and Sri Samir Saha.
( 3 ) MR. Vikash Kumar Jain claimed to be the transporter carried the goods of the concerned company namely M/s. Chessman Impex Private Limited from India to Bangladesh. The allegation is that the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence used third degree method to him. By brutal physical assault in the deadly night they forced the petitioner to write maize were carried and exported instead of wire rods. He was further forced to falsely implicate Sri Mahendra Kumar Jain, the petitioner of the first writ petition. Because of such brutal assault he blindly followed the dictate of the officers to save his life. Inspite of being told about his illness and past operation he was not spared. The condition of the petitioner deteriorated in the evening of 12th February, 2002 and only then he was let off at about 9. 30 p. m. He was hospitalised. Certain signatures were also obtained by the officers on several printed forms having blank spaces.
( 4 ) SO far as the third writ petition is concerned the same is made by the concerned company and also by one Sri Surendra Kr. Gangawal stated to be the Director of that company imported Re-rollable Scrape against advance licence. It was completed its export obligation of 5000 MT of Non-alloy Bars and Rods (Wire rods) for short by January, 2002. The company received export proceeds by way of remittance on 6th February, 2002. The representatives of the aforesaid authority visited the office at Calcutta when the second petitioner happened to be out of Calcutta. One of the two officers enquired about him and left his telephone number. In turn, the petitioner telephoned, when he was called upon to reach the office on a particular date. The respondent No. 4 asked few questions and directed him to sit and wait. He had come to know that when he was there the office was searched. At about 5 p. m. The second petitioner sought leave of the officer present therein to enable him to take dinner when it was refused. At about 8. 30 p. m. in the night on the request of writing in Hindi instead of English he was met with slap on the face and got abuse. There were dictating certain thing which were untrue. The assault, torture, abuse and inhuman treatment continued till about 1 a. m. on 12th February, 2002. He was compelled to write the dictates and the same type of interrogation was continued upto 4. 30 a. m. in the morning. At about 6 a. m. in the next day the second petitioner sought permission to go home for getting fresh and bath. However, the request was also refused. He was directed to use the toilet of the office where the doors were kept open even during use. At about 8 a. m. again interrogation started. They further, threatened that
