High Court of Kerala

Nabeel Vs.State of Kerala and Ors.

MANU/KE/2468/2020

14.09.2020

Criminal

Power to arrest a person by a customs officer is statutory in character and cannot be interfered with

Present is a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 193 (CrPC). The Petitioner is the 3rd accused for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegation against him is that, along with the other accused, the Petitioner/3rd accused used ladies as carriers for smuggling gold through various Airports in India. In the instant case, the smuggling gang had allegedly used two ladies accused Nos. 4 and 5, respectively as mules to smuggle 39 KGs of gold worth Rs. 11.7 crores which includes the smuggling of 6 KGs of gold on 8th November, 2013 through the Calicut Airport which was intercepted and seized by the D.R.I.

The Petitioner has approached present Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings against him stating that, apart from the confession statements of accused numbers 1, 4 and 5 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, there is no other reliable evidence against the Petitioner holding guilty of having committed the offence alleged.

On contrary, the learned Standing Counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), submits that customs officers are not Police officers. They are revenue officers, primarily concerned with detection of smuggling and enforcement of proper duties. It is stated that an occurrence report submitted by a customs officer cannot be equated with an FIR, and therefore, the provisions of the CrPC cannot strictly apply to an investigation under the Customs Act. The learned Standing Counsel argues that, the power to arrest a person by a customs officer is statutory in character and cannot be interfered with. The person who gives a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act may not necessarily be made an accused and the provisions of Sections 154 to 157 and Section 173(2) of the CrPC do not apply to a case under the Customs Act.

The Customs Officials are not Police Officers. The confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds on the Petitioner as per judgment of present Court in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India.

Statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which is inculpatory, is not hit by the provisions under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Whether the statements of the co-accused could be used against the Petitioner is a question to be determined by the trial Court. It is, therefore, premature for this Court to discard the materials against the Petitioner in the form of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act given by the other accused. Present is not a fit case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the proceedings. Criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed.

Relevant

Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India MANU/SC/0660/1997

Tags : Smuggling Proceedings Quashing of

Share :