2025 (5) TMI 1468 - HC - Customs

Double jeopardy - filing of separate complaints under Section 177 IPC and Section 132 of the Customs Act - Misdeclaration and undervaluation of various types of Pesticides - summon issued under Section 108 Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - Essentially the contentions of the Petitioner are that during his interrogation by the DRI in a Complaint he had given a statement which is claimed to be false for which the present Complaint has been filed under Section 177 IPC. According to him a separate Complaint under Section 132 Customs Act has already been filed for the same offence and the present Complaint is not maintainable as it tantamounts to subjecting the Petitioner to suffer for the same offence twice which is prohibited under Section 300 Cr.P.C. as well as it amounts to violation of his Constitutional Right protected under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. Pertinently it is mentioned in the Complaint itself and has also been admitted by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner that in his Discharge Application which was filed under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. same grounds had been taken and the said Application was dismissed by the learned MM vide order dated 06.06.2016. Admittedly he filed a Revision Petition challenging the order of learned MM wherein the same grounds as agitated in the present Writ Petition in addition to other grounds were taken by on behalf of the Petitioner. It is evident that the grounds on which the quashing of Complaint has been sought have already been agitated before learned MM who has dismissed the Application for Discharge. The Petitioner most appropriately has availed the appropriate remedy of assailing the order by way of Revision and in these circumstances the parallel challenge to Complaint on same grounds cannot be agitated by way of this Writ Petition. In fact filing this Writ Petition amounts to bypassing the determination by learned ASJ and the Petitioner should continue with his Revision rather than seeking a direct challenge to the order of learned MM by way of present proceedings. There is no merit in the present Petition which is hereby dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

- Whether the Complaint filed under Section 177 IPC discloses a valid offence, or is an abuse of process of law warranting quashing.

- Whether a person summoned under the Customs Act is "legally bound" to furnish information for the purpose of Section 177 IPC.

- Whether the filing of separate complaints under Section 177 IPC and Section 132 Customs Act for allegedly the same offence amounts to double jeopardy, violating Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 Cr.P.C.

- The scope and applicability of the Customs Act as a self-contained code governing offences related to customs, and whether it excludes prosecution under general penal provisions like Section 177 IPC.

- The appropriateness of invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the Complaint when parallel remedies are available.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Complaint under Section 177 IPC

The legal framework involves Section 177 IPC, which punishes furnishing false information to public servants who are "legally bound" to obtain such information. The Petitioner argued that the Complaint did not disclose an offence under this section because he was not under a legal obligation to provide the information during investigation under the Customs Act.

The Court noted that the term "legally bound" is not defined in the Code, and mere answering of questions does not necessarily impose a duty to furnish information under Section 177 IPC. The Petitioner relied on a precedent from the Bombay High Court which held that without a contractual or legal obligation, a person is not liable under Section 177 IPC for withholding information.

The Court examined the nature of the investigation under the Customs Act and found that the Petitioner had cooperated and tendered statements. The Complaint alleged that the Petitioner gave vague replies and withheld details, constituting furnishing false information. However, the Court observed that these allegations had already been considered by the Magistrate at the discharge stage, who found prima facie offence disclosed.

The Court emphasized that the issue of validity of the Complaint under Section 177 IPC had been adjudicated at the appropriate stage (Section 245 Cr.P.C.) and dismissed the Petitioner's attempt to re-agitate the same grounds via writ petition.

Issue 2: Applicability of Customs Act as a Self-Contained Code and Double Jeopardy

The Petitioner contended that the Customs Act, 1962 is a self-contained statute with specific provisions for offences including false declarations under Section 132, and that prosecution under Section 177 IPC for the same conduct is impermissible. He invoked Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, which prohibits multiple punishments for the same act under different enactments.

The Court considered the principle of double jeopardy enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C., which prohibit prosecution and punishment more than once for the same offence. The Petitioner argued that separate complaints under Section 177 IPC and Section 132 Customs Act amounted to double prosecution.

The Court noted the Petitioner's reliance on several precedents including the Supreme Court's ruling that Section 300 Cr.P.C. provides broader protection than Article 20(2), and that special laws like the Customs Act govern their own offences and procedures. It also referred to a ruling that where a later statute prescribes offences and procedures differing from an earlier one, the earlier statute is effectively repealed to the extent of inconsistency.

However, the Court observed that the Complaint under Section 177 IPC and the separate complaint under Customs Act were distinct proceedings and that the issue of double jeopardy had been raised and rejected by the Magistrate at the discharge stage. The Court declined to interfere at the writ stage, emphasizing that the Petitioner had available remedies to challenge the Magistrate's order.

Issue 3: Appropriateness of Writ Petition and Procedural Aspects

The Court highlighted that the Petitioner had already filed an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, which was dismissed. The Petitioner also filed a revision petition challenging that order, raising the same grounds as in the present writ petition.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner was attempting to bypass the statutory remedy of revision by invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court held that such parallel challenge was not permissible, and the Petitioner should pursue the revision petition rather than seek quashing by way of writ petition.

The Court underscored the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not to be exercised where alternative efficacious remedies exist. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it accordingly.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "The grounds on which the quashing of Complaint has been sought, have already been agitated before learned MM, who has dismissed the Application for Discharge. The Petitioner most appropriately, has availed the appropriate remedy of assailing the order by way of Revision and in these circumstances, the parallel challenge to Complaint on same grounds cannot be agitated by way of this Writ Petition."

- "Filing this Writ Petition amounts to bypassing the determination by learned ASJ and the Petitioner should continue with his Revision rather than seeking a direct challenge to the order of learned MM, by way of present proceedings."

- The Court reaffirmed the principle that the Customs Act is a special law with its own provisions for offences and prosecution, and that prosecution under Section 177 IPC for conduct covered under the Customs Act may raise issues of double jeopardy, but such issues must be adjudicated through proper statutory remedies.

- The Court emphasized that the term "legally bound" under Section 177 IPC requires a legal obligation to furnish information, which is not automatically triggered by being summoned under the Customs Act.

- The Court concluded that the Complaint under Section 177 IPC was maintainable at the prima facie stage and that the Petitioner's challenge was premature and not maintainable in writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies were available.