K.T. Sankaran, J.

The main question to be decided in this Writ Petition is whether the provisions of Sections 154 to 157 and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply in respect of the proceedings under the Customs Act, in view of Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C. and whether in respect of offences under Sections 133 to 135 of the Customs Act registration of FIR is compulsory before the person concerned is arrested and produced before the Magistrate.

2. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing release of the petitioner from custody pursuant to an arrest and detention for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act. In the Writ Petition eight reliefs have been prayed for, the 8th relief being a residuary one praying to pass any further orders which the Court may deem fit and proper to issue in the interests of justice. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not pressing relief (VII) at this stage and that the questions involved with respect to reliefs (V) and (VI) may be kept open with liberty to the petitioner to invoke those reliefs at the appropriate stage. That means, for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition, we need to confine to reliefs (I) to (IV). For the sake of convenience, reliefs (I) to (IV) are extracted hereunder:

“I. Issue appropriate Writ, Order or directions quashing and setting aside the Arrest Memo dated 18.6.2015 bearing No.O.R.No.4/15, whereby, Respondent No.2 has arrested the petitioner in purported exercise of powers under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the orders dated 18.6.2015 (Exhibit P4) and 24.6.2015 (Exhibit P6) passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, whereby the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody as also to the custody of DRI as the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction; null and void ab initio and, therefore, vitiated by the application of the legal maxims; “Debile fundamentum fallit onus”, meaning, thereby, that when the foundation falls, everything falls; and “sublato fundamento cadit opus”; meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.

II. Issue appropriate writ, order or directions, especially in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the forthwith release of the petitioner from custody as his arrest and subsequent incarceration is violative of his fundamental rights, inter alia, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

III. Issue appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents to comply with the mandate of either Section 154 Cr.P.C. or Section 155 Cr.P.C. in the event of the specified offences under the Customs Act, 1962 being cognizable or non-cognizable in view of Section 104(4) & (5) thereof, in true spirit and compliance with the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Om Prakash and another Versus Union of India and another 2011 (14) SCC 1”, prior to summoning the petitioner or any other person for their appearance in any case or inquiry.

IV. Issue writ, order or directions holding the investigations into the non-cognizable offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 without seeking order of the Magistrate as per Section 155 Cr.P.C. to be to be null and void ab initio and/or in the alternative the investigation into the cognizable offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 without recording the FIR and following the procedure prescribed under Sections 154, 156, 157, 172 Cr.P.C. etc. to be illegal non-est, null and void ab initio; without jurisdiction; unconstitutional, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

3. The facts of the case, which are necessary for disposing of the Writ Petition are the following. Kishin S. Loungani (writ petitioner) is engaged in export business. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. R. Kishin & Com