The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can quash criminal proceedings if the prosecution lacks prima facie evidence, the complaint is barred by limitation, and the prosecution sanction is invalid.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The instant petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of order dated 5th March 2014 passed by learned CMM Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC No. No.75/1/2013 and to quash the CC No.75/1/2013 under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter 'the Act') and also order dated 29th July 2016 passed by learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 47/2014.

BRIEF FACTS

2. On 26th February 2013 the respondent, i.e. Director of Revenue Intelligence, Head Quarter, (hereinafter 'DRI') filed a criminal complaint Case bearing CC No. 75/1/13 under Section 132 and 135 (1)(a) of the Act, before the learned Trial Court stating therein that intelligence reports have been received that M/s Elgin Electronics (hereinafter 'the firm'), of which petitioner no. 1 is the Proprietor and petitioner no. 2 is the Manager, was in the business of importing public address systems, sound systems for auditorium etc. without payment of customs duty. On basis of the said inputs, search was conducted on 13 th July 2009 by the DRI at the premises of the firm. Goods imported by the said firm were detained and inquiry was made from the accused persons about the value of the detained goods. The petitioner no. 1 furnished an approximate value of the goods vide letter dated 1st September, 2009, but no document regarding the same was given to the DRI. Goods detained were then seized on the reasonable belief that same has been imported without payment of customs duty.

3. It is further alleged that during the course of investigation, documents pertaining to retail Invoices raised by the firm were found to be fake. The statement of one Ramesh Gupta, partner of M/s Gupta Brothers was recorded under Section 108 of the Act in which he has stated that his firm had executed a project for M/s GAIL for an total amount of Rs. 7.46 Crores, out of which work pertaining to audio visual system for Rs. 1 Crore was outsourced to the firm. A retail invoice, recovered from one of the premises of the accused persons, was shown to Ramesh Gupta regarding sale of mobile phones for Rs.62,25,305/- which was stated to be fake. Investigation revealed that the accused persons had committed offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Act.

4. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 5th March 2014 issued summons to the accused persons/petitioners dispensing with the examination of the complainant, who was a public servant at the presummoning stage. The petitioners being aggrieved, challenged the order dated 5th March 2014, by way of filing Criminal Revision No.47/2014 before Additional Sessions Judge-02, FTC, New Delhi. Vide order dated 29th July 2016, the aforesaid criminal revision was dismissed by the Revisional Court. Hence, the instant Criminal Misc Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners.

SUBMISSIONS

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no case under Section 132 of the Act is made out against the petitioners as admittedly the petitioners never made, signed, used any document, declaration or statement in the course of the business of petitioner no.1's firm knowingly or under a belief that such declaration, document or statement is false. It is further submitted that there is no violation as contemplated under Section 111 of the Act as the petitioners are neither importer of goods nor associated in any capacity with any illegal import of the subject goods. It is further submitted that as per Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, action can only be taken in respect of any goods, where market price of which exceeds Rs.1 Crore. However, in the present case, the value of the goods assessed by the Department is only Rs.77,16,228/-, which is less than 1 Crore.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that learned CMM did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is a notific