The court established that there is no concept of vicarious liability under criminal law and emphasized the importance of not initiating prosecution and summoning an accused on mere suspicion or doubtful violation of the law.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint filed by the respondent/Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [Hereinafter referred as "DRI"] for offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) and (b) of The Customs Act, 1962 [Hereinafter referred as "Act"], against persons including the petitioner herein, and for quashing of the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ [Section 204:Issue of process.-(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.

(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.

(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87.] taking cognizance and issuing summons to the petitioner.

2. As per the complaint filed by the DRI, after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the Sanctioning Authority, three persons, including one Mr. Anil Kumar Langan, father of the petitioner herein, were intercepted at the IGI Airport on 29.04.2017 on the basis of a specific intelligence to the effect that a syndicate was involved in smuggling of arms and ammunitions from Slovenia to India and that members of the said syndicate would be arriving at Terminal-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi, carrying prohibited items by way of concealment either in their hand/checked-in baggage or on person to try to smuggle the same without declaring before the Customs and without payment of customs duty leviable thereon. Further, the father of the petitioner utilized the petitioner's Arms and Ammunition License [Hereinafter referred as "License"] issued by the Delhi Police and the Renowned Shooter Certificate issued by the National Rifle Association of India [Hereinafter referred as "NRAI"] for importing weapons using bogus Invoices and by suppressing the true value and description of the weapons, and without the recommendation of NRAI.

3. In the proceedings before the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, the petitioner in her statement under Section 108 of the Act, recorded on 20.06.2017 submitted that on the date of incident i.e., 29.04.2017, she was not in Delhi and was at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat [where she was studying at that point of time]. She further stated that she never ordered any import of arms as it was her father who procures them on her behalf. She further submitted that as she was only concerned with the shooting competitions, and all arrangements qua the arms and their procurement were made by her father, she was also not aware of the quantum of arms in her name as all the paperwork was handled by her father.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be punished for the alleged offences committed by her father and also that based on the documentary evidence, including the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Act on 20.06.2017, there is no case made out against her. He further submits that as none of the ingredients of Section(s) 132, 135(1(a) a