The court affirmed the independence of adjudication and prosecution under the Customs Act, allowing summons issuance despite ongoing proceedings, while reinforcing that such summons do not violate self-incrimination rights.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 108, 112(a), 112(b), 123, 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(l), 111(m) - Allegations of gold smuggling against customs inspector - Notice issued for confiscation and penalty - Jurisdiction of customs to summon - Circulars pertaining to prosecution initiation. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Jurisdiction - Authority to summon under Section 108 - Distinction between adjudication and prosecution - Higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in adjudication - Independent nature of proceedings under Chapter XIV and Chapter XVI substantiated by case law. (Paras 5-6)

(C) Self-incrimination - Definition under Article 20(3) - Distinction between testimonial evidence and material evidence established. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Customs Inspector, was accused of facilitating gold smuggling. A show cause notice was issued concerning confiscation and penalties. He contested the summons for providing evidence as jurisdiction was allegedly compromised given the ongoing adjudication.

Findings of Court:
The summons issued under Section 108 was upheld; adjudication and prosecution can be independently initiated. The court reinforced that evidence collection does not violate self-incrimination rights.

Issues: Whether the jurisdiction to summon during ongoing adjudication was valid and the implications of prosecutorial independence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that proceedings under different chapters of the Act are independent; thus, summons issued under Section 108 is valid, and the petitioner's claims were unfounded.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, an Inspector of Customs is presently posted in the Customs (Preventive) Department at Kannur. Upon the allegation that while serving as Inspector of Customs at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, he facilitated the smuggling of gold by certain persons, Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), where the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why;

“(i) The seized 4083.43 gram of foreign origin gold valued at around Rs.2,48,06,838/- (Market value) should not be confiscated under Sections 111 (d), 111(i), 111(l), 111(j) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 123 of the ;

(ii) gold totally weighing 4500 gram valued at around Rs.2.73 crore smuggled by the syndicate during the previous occasions, should not be held liable for confiscation under Sections 111 (d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 123 of the ;

(iii) penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 112 (a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 .”

The petitioner has filed Ext.P3 reply to Ext.P2 show cause notice, where he has taken the stand that he is not at all concerned with the proposals in (i) and (ii) above and that he is not liable to be imposed with any penalty under the provisions of Sections 112 (a) and 112(b) of the Act. The said show cause notice is pending adjudication.

2. While so, the petitioner was issued with a summons under Section 108 of the Act (Ext.P9) for providing certain information and for recording the voice sample of the petitioner in connection with the investigation being carried on by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply essentially taking up a contention that since the show cause notice had already been issued, the petitioner could not be called upon to provide any further evidence or material and therefore it was not proper to issue a summons to him under Section 108 of the Act. It was contended that the officer had become functus officio with the issuance of the show cause notice. The petitioner was favoured with Ext.P6 reply informing him that the issuance of the show cause notice did not take away the jurisdiction of the 7^th respondent to issue a summons under Section 108 of the Act. The petitioner through his counsel replied to Ext.P7 again taking up a contention that the 7^th respondent had no jurisdiction to issue summons pending adjudication of the show cause notice issued under Chapter XIV of the Act. In reply to Ext.P7, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P8 reply specifically pointing out that the summons was issued in connection with proceedings contemplated under Chapter XVI of the Act. It was also pointed out that one of the conditions imposed by the District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam while granting bail to the petitioner was that the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him, till the complaint is filed. The petitioner has therefore approached this court seeking the following reliefs:-

“(1) To call for the records leading to Ext-P4, Ext-P6, Ext-P8 and Ext-P9 proceedings from the Respondents and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext-P4, Ext-P6, Ext-P8 and Ext-P9 proceedings of the Respondents.

(2) To declare that Ext-P4, Ext-P6, Ext-P8 and Ext-P9 issued by the Respondents is without having any jurisdiction and therefore illegal.

(3) To issue such appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Sri. Karthik J. Sekhar the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the proceedings under Chapter XIV and Chapter XVI of the Act are distinct and different, the guidelines for launching prosecution in relation to offences punishable under the Customs Act, 1963 as contained in Circular 27/2015-C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 79877

The court affirmed the independence of adjudication and prosecution under the Customs Act, allowing summons issuance despite ongoing proceedings, while reinforcing that such summons do not violate self-incrimination rights.

Cases Referred (3)