Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Union Of India, Through the Department of Customs, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Law), IGI Airport, New Delhi – Petitioner
Versus
Hemant Kumar Ishwar Dass Singhvi – Respondent
Crl. A. 1503 of 2025
Decided On : 20-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pramod Bahuguna, SPP with Ms. Yachi and Ms. Debora Daimari, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Aishwarya Dwivedi, Advocate.

Offenses of false declaration or duty evasion under the customs framework cannot be sustained if the accused is apprehended before reaching the official clearance stage, as such actions remain in the preparatory phase rather than constituting an actionable attempt to violate statutory requirements.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) - Offenses of false declaration and fraudulent evasion of customs duty - Requirement for proof of intent and actus reus at the stage of official clearance.

(B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court scope limited to correcting perversity or illegality in trial court findings - Presumption of innocence remains in favor of the accused in absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 46, 53)

(C) Criminal Law - Preparatory act vs. Attempt - Distinction in the context of regulatory offenses - Apprehension of a passenger before the opportunity to submit a declaration at the designated clearance desk precludes a finding of criminal attempt to evade duty. (Paras 47, 54)

Facts of the case:
The respondent was intercepted by regulatory officers upon arrival from abroad, following the completion of immigration formalities but prior to reaching the customs clearance area. During a personal search, precious metal was discovered concealed on the respondent's person. The respondent had not yet made any declaration regarding the contents of the baggage or person. The trial court acquitted the respondent, reasoning that no offense was committed as the interception occurred before the clearance process commenced. The state preferred an appeal against this verdict.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the respondent could not be found guilty of a false declaration or fraudulent evasion of duty, as the interception occurred at a stage where a declaration was not yet mandatory. The court noted that while the recovery was suspicious, the prosecution failed to establish the critical element of an overt attempt to evade duty, distinguishing between mere preparation and a punishable attempt.

Issues: Whether the interception of a passenger prior to the declaration of goods at the customs arrival counter constitutes a punishable offense of false declaration or intentional attempt to evade duty under statutory regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal liability for non-declaration or duty evasion requires the accused to have reached the stage where a declaration is mandated. When intercepted prior to accessing the customs clearance process, the conduct is merely preparatory and does not satisfy the requirements for conviction under the relevant statutes regarding fraudulent evasion or misdeclaration.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the prosecution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
2. contentions regarding evidence, procedural compliance, and statutory interpretation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
3. analysis of statutory provisions under sections 132 and 135 of the customs act. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
4. requirement of active conduct or opportunity for customs clearance to constitute an offence. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
5. failure to prove criminal intent or completed attempt as per evidence. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
6. final confirmation of acquittal and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Petition under Section 378 (v) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for Special Leave to Appeal against the Judgment of acquittal dated 26.09.2018 passed by learned CMM, New Delhi, punishable for the offences Under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act,1962, C.C.No.19115/19 has been preferred.

2. Appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the Appellant challenging the Judgment dated 26.09.2018 whereby the learned ACMM, New Delhi has acquitted the Respondent in Complaint Case under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The prosecution/Appellant had filed a Criminal Complaint No. 19115/19.against the Respondent, Hemant Kumar Ishwar Das Singhvi, under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. The case of the Prosecution in brief, is that on 11.02.1991, the Respondent arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from London by flight No.BA-147 and was intercepted on suspicion, by the Customs Officer. On his personal search, gold biscuits weighing 3496.400 Grams, having value of Rs.12,23,470/- (present value approximately Rs.1,39,00,000/-) were recovered, which he concealed in his waist belt, having 15 pouches (two biscuits in each pouch). He was arrested by the Customs officer and thereafter, produced in the Court, where he was remanded to judicial custody.

5. On 15.02.1991, after conclusion of investigations, the Complaint was filed against the Respondent by the Customs Officer for offence punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Act.

6. The learned ACMM, New Delhi took cognizance on the Complaint, on 25.02.1991.

7. The Prosecution examined three pre-charge witnesses. PW-1 Sh. R. C. Mahajan, Superintendent, has proved the voluntary statement of Respondent under Section 108 of the Act, 1962, as Ex. PW-1/A.

8. PW-2 Sh. M. S. Manjunath, Customs Officer, has proved the Complaint Ex. PW-2/A; sanction and authorization accorded under Section 137 of the Act Ex.PW-2/B; Certificate issued by Gold Smith Ex.PW-2/C; Panchnama Ex.PW-2/D; travel documents Ex.PW-2/E1 to E5; Application under Section 110(1)(B) of the Act; Ex.PW-2/F, proceedings under Section 110(1)(B) of the Act; Ex.PW-2/H, paper slip Ex.PW-2/J. Concealing materials, i.e. Belt Ex.-P1 and adhesive tape, are Ex.-P2.

9. PW-3 Kuldeep Sugandh, Gold Smith, had examined recovered metal, which was gold and issued purity Certificate Ex. PW-2/C.

10. Thereafter, charges were framed under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962, to which the Responded pleaded not guilty.

11. During pendency of the trial, an Application under Sections 110(1A), (1B) and (1C) of Customs Act, 1962, for early disposal of the Gold / case property, was filed before learned ACMM, which was assigned to learned MM for disposal. The case property was produced by learned MM and inventory i.e. Panchnama, was certified as correct.

12. Thereafter, PW-3 Kuldeep Sugandh was recalled for cross-examination on 18.01.2002.

13. Statement of Respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 06.01.2003, wherein Respondent denied all the incriminating evidence put to him.

14. He, examined himself

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Del) 621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.Union Of India, Through the Department of Customs, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Law), IGI Airport, New Delhi – Petitioner VersusHemant Kumar Ishwar Dass Singhvi – Respondent Crl. A. 1503 of 2025Decided On : 20-05-2026

Offenses of false declaration or duty evasion under the customs framework cannot be sustained if the accused is apprehended before reaching the official clearance stage, as such actions remain in the preparatory phase rather than constituting an actionable attempt to violate statutory requirements.

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Union Of India, Through the Department of Customs, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Law), IGI Airport, New Delhi – Petitioner
Versus
Hemant Kumar Ishwar Dass Singhvi – Respondent
Crl. A. 1503 of 2025
Decided On : 20-05-2026