Back
1962 Supreme(Gau) 28
Manipur High Court
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.
Baldeo Raj Bhatia
Versus
Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Silchar
Criminal Revn. No. 18 of 1961
Decided On : 16-04-1962
N. Ibotombi Singh and R.K. Manisana Singh, for Petitioner; B.B. Sen, for Respondent.
Delay in filing a criminal complaint violates the accused's right to a speedy trial.
Headnote:
LAND CUSTOMS ACT, 1924 - SECTION 7(2) AND 7(3) - IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (CONTROL) ACT, 1947 - SECTION 5 - CRIMINAL PROSECUTION - DELAY IN FILING COMPLAINT - PUNISHMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act, 1924, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, for attempting to take dutiable goods without a permit and without payment of duty. The petitioner argued that the complaint was filed after a delay of 2 years and 8 months, which was unreasonable and violated his right to a speedy trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in filing the complaint was unreasonable and violated the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. The court also held that the petitioner's conviction under Section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act was valid, but the sentence of imprisonment was excessive.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in filing the complaint violated the petitioner's right to a speedy trial? 2. Whether the petitioner's conviction under Section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in filing the complaint was unreasonable and violated the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. The court noted that the petitioner was kept in the dark for more than 2 years after the departmental action was over, and that the complaint was filed only after a delay of 2 years and 8 months. The court held that such a delay was unacceptable and violated the petitioner's right to a fair trial. 2. The court held that the petitioner's conviction under Section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act was valid. The court found that the petitioner was attempting to take dutiable goods without a permit and without payment of duty, which was a clear violation of the law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in its place. The court also directed that in default of payment of fine, the petitioner would suffer R.I. for 3 months.
2. The facts are beyond dispute. On 26-10-1957, the petitioner, who was a Calcutta bound passenger from Imphal was attempting to take a suit-case in the Plane without it being registered or checked by the Customs Officer. It was detected by the Customs Inspector - Sri N. C. Banerji at the Koirengei Airport when it was seen without any label under the postal mail, which was ready for despatch by the plane. When questioned by the Customs Inspector, the petitioner admitted his ownership of the baggage and when he was asked to open it for inspection he at first refused to open it, but ultimately it was opened and 405 Parker 51 pencils made in England were seen inside the suit-case for which the petitioner was not able to produce any satisfactory documentary evidence showing bona fide purchase or licit importation. The import of such pencil required a permit under Sec. 5 of the Land Customs Act and an import licence under the notification of the Government of India, issued under Sec. 3 (1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and they were also liable to payment of duty, which for the 405 pencils would amount to over Rs. 4,000/-. The suit-case containing the pencils was therefore seized by the Customs Inspector and the matter was reported to the Higher Authorities.
3. Then the petitioner was given a show cause notice under Secs. 5(3) and 7(1) of the Land Customs Act, 1924 and under Sec. 167 (8) read with section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 as made applicable by Sec. 3 (2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, why penalty should not be levied on him and the goods confiscated. The petitioner filed a reply stating that he purchased the goods from a hillman, expecting a reasonable return by re-selling them, without any knowledge, that he was committing an offence and that his case may be considered sympathetically. But he did not appear at the time of the hearing of the matter before the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Shillong. An order was passed by the Collector on 3-6-1958, confiscating the goods and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Sec. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
4. Thereafter, a letter of authority was given by the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs to the Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs, Silchar, to institute a criminal. case under Sec. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 against the petitioner as it was felt that the gravity of offence committed required prosecution under Sec. 5 of the said Act. Then a complaint was filed by the Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs on 21-6-1960, i.e. 2 years and 8 months after the seizure of the goods against the petitioner under Sec. 7 (3) of the Land Customs Act and Sec. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, read with Sec. 9 of the Land Customs Act. Charges were framed under the two sections. The Additional District Magistrate, as I said, convicted the petitioner under both the sections. But the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioner of the charge under S. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act on a technical ground, namely, that the letter of authorisation - Ext. A/2 given by the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs for the prosecution was not sufficient and that under Sec. 6 of the said Act, as it then stood, an Officer authorised by the Central Government had to file the complaint and there was no evidence that the Superin
