SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Del) 69

High Court Of Delhi
SITA RAM AGGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
CUSTOMS - Respondent
BAIL APPLICATION : 2030 of 2004
Decided On : 01/19/2005

Advocates Appeared:
ARUN BHARDWAJ, Stilish Aggarawal

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 439-Regular bail-Offences under SS. 132 & 135(1)(a) of Customs Act-Section 132 is a bailable offence and it is only on account of the allegation that an offence under S. 135(1)(a) has been committed-Compounding of offence under S. 135(1)(a) Even if an offence under S. 135(1)(a) it made out, it would still be compoundable under S., 137(3) of the Act-Unclear allegation in the complaint that there is any whisper of any mis-declaration of value-Bail granted.

Badar Durrez, Ahmed, J.

( 1 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the application for regular bail under Section 434, submitted that the two allegations made against the petitioner are that offences have been committed under Sections 132 and 135 (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits straightaway that Section 132 is a bailable offence and it is only on account of the allegation that an offence under Section 135 (1 ) (a) has been committed that he is before this Court. He further pointed out that by a subsequent amendment which came into effect in 2004, Sub-Section 3 has been added to Section 137 whereby it is now provided that-

"any offence under this chapter may, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on payment, by the person accused of the offence to the Central government, of such compounding amount as may be specified by rules".

( 2 ) THUS, according to him, even if an offence under Section 135 (l) (a) is made out, it would still be compoundable under Section 137 (3) ot the said Act and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, specially when bail is rule and the jail is the exception. He further submitted that on going through the complaint itself, no offence under Section 135 (1) (a) would be made out.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing lor the Customs Department submitted that this was a clear case in which the ingredients of Section 135 (l) (a) were made out and keeping in mind the seriousness of the offence and the allegations, bail should not be granted, lie drew my attention to the complaint and several paragraphs therein, particularly, he drew my attention to paragraphs 3 (cc) and 3 (cc) (iii) and (iv) which read as under: " (3 (cc) From the perusal of various Bank statements of both these firms and statements dated 24. 7. 2004 of the accused and Rajesh Agarwal dated 24. 7. 2004 and various statements of the Bank recorded on 30. 7. 2004, the following facts came to surface:


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top