9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2025 (7) TMI 580 - HC - CustomsValidity of the summoning order passed u/s 208 210 Bhartiya Nyayik Sanhita Police Station DRI District Lucknow as well as the entire proceedings - Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs) Lucknow has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 208 210 BNS - appellant requests to be granted permission to appear through his representative or through video conferencing - HELD THAT - The request of appellant ought to have been made by the applicant in response to various summons issued to him by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence but the applicant failed to respond to the repetitive summons issued by the authority and he simply ignored the summons. The repetitive failure from the applicant to appear in response to the summons issued by the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence prima facie makes out a case for his trial for committing offences under Section 208 210 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita in these circumstances the trial court has not committed any error or illegality in issuing summons to the applicant for facing trial for the aforesaid offences. As offences under Sections 208 210 BNS are punishable with imprisonment which may extend for a period of one month only there is no apprehension of the applicant being arrested upon his appearance before the trial court in facing trial of offences under Sections 208 210 BNS. So far as the applicant s request for permission to appear through representative or through video conferencing is concerned the applicant ought to have made this request to the authorities of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and he is still at liberty to make this request to the authorities or before the trial court which request shall be considered and dealt with in accordance with law. In absence of any illegality having been committed by the authorities of the Revenue Intelligence and by the trial court this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present application under Section 528 BNSS. The application is dismissed leaving it open to the applicants to appear before the trial court in response to the summons and raise all the pleas available to him which will be dealt with by the trial court in accordance with law.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Summoning Order under Sections 208 & 210 BNS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 208 and 210 of the Bhartiya Nyayik Sanhita, 2023, prescribe punishment for failure to attend in obedience to a lawful summons and for omission to produce documents to a public servant, respectively. Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, empowers Customs officers to summon persons to give evidence or produce documents, and mandates attendance either in person or through an authorized agent. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the summons issued to the applicant and the subsequent order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of offences under Sections 208 and 210 BNS. The Court noted that the summons were issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which explicitly contemplates attendance by an authorized agent or in person. The Court found that the repeated failure of the applicant to attend despite multiple summons justified the issuance of the summoning order. Key Evidence and Findings: The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) complaint and investigation revealed suspicious import activity under the advance licence scheme without corresponding exports, absence of manufacturing activity at the company's premises, and bogus office members. Statements recorded from company officials implicated the applicant in connection with a deed of high sea sale, necessitating his presence for investigation. The applicant failed to appear despite multiple summons dated between October 2023 and July 2024. Application of Law to Facts: Given the applicant's failure to comply with lawful summons issued under Section 108 Customs Act, the Court held that the trial court rightly took cognizance under Sections 208 and 210 BNS. The offences are cognizable and punishable with imprisonment up to one month and/or fine, which does not warrant interference at this stage. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicant contended that illness prevented appearance. However, the medical evidence indicated only a brief period of illness (high-grade fever for three days), and subsequent communications failed to establish continued incapacity. The Court found no sufficient justification for non-appearance over the extended period. Conclusion: The summoning order under Sections 208 and 210 BNS is valid and does not warrant quashing. Issue 2: Sufficiency of Medical Grounds for Non-Appearance Relevant Legal Framework: The applicant's right to be excused from attendance on medical grounds must be supported by credible and continuous medical evidence. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court scrutinized the medical documents submitted by the applicant, including an OPD prescription dated 28.10.2023 and various pathological reports. The Court found that these documents do not demonstrate a sustained or serious illness that would justify repeated non-appearance over several months. The applicant's intermittent emails citing illness or unforeseen circumstances were insufficient and lacked corroboration. Key Evidence and Findings: The OPD prescription showed a three-day medication period for fever. Pathological reports did not indicate any serious or prolonged ailment. Emails requesting adjournments were sporadic and did not cover the entire period of summons. Application of Law to Facts: The applicant failed to establish continuous illness that would exempt him from attending the summons. The Court emphasized the importance of responding to summons in a timely and responsible manner. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicant's argument for illness was considered but found insufficient. The Court underscored that absence without adequate justification, especially after repeated summons, constitutes an offence under Sections 208 and 210 BNS. Conclusion: Medical grounds do not excuse the applicant's failure to appear, and no relief is warranted on this basis. Issue 3: Entitlement to Appear Through Representative or Video Conferencing Relevant Legal Framework: Section 108(3) of the Customs Act allows attendance either in person or by an authorized agent. The Court also considered procedural flexibility in the context of modern technology and rights of the accused. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged that the applicant could have appeared through an authorized representative or requested video conferencing, as permitted by law. However, the Court noted that the applicant did not make such a request in response to the summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Court observed that the applicant remains free to make such a request before the authorities or the trial court, which must be considered in accordance with law. Key Evidence and Findings: No formal request for representation or video conferencing was made by the applicant during the investigation or proceedings. Application of Law to Facts: The Court emphasized procedural propriety, noting that the applicant's failure to respond to summons or seek alternative modes of appearance undermines his position. Nonetheless, the Court left open the possibility for the applicant to seek such relief going forward. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicant argued for flexibility in appearance due to health and other reasons. The Court balanced this against the need for compliance with summons and procedural requirements. Conclusion: No interference is warranted on this ground, but the applicant may still seek permission to appear through a representative or video conferencing before the trial court or authorities. Issue 4: Whether Proceedings Should Be Quashed Relevant Legal Framework: The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 528 BNS allow for quashing of proceedings in cases of illegality or abuse of process. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found no illegality or procedural irregularity in the issuance of summons or the taking of cognizance by the trial court. The offences are clearly made out prima facie by the applicant's failure to comply with lawful summons. The Court also noted that the punishment involved is limited to imprisonment up to one month, minimizing concerns of undue hardship. Key Evidence and Findings: The repeated non-compliance with summons, absence of sufficient medical justification, and the nature of the investigation into alleged customs violations. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the trial court's order summoning the applicant is justified and that the proceedings should continue. The Court declined to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings at this stage. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicant's plea for quashing based on illness and procedural grounds was considered but rejected due to lack of merit. Conclusion: The application to quash the proceedings is dismissed. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The repetitive failure from the applicant to appear in response to the summons issued by the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, prima facie, makes out a case for his trial for committing offences under Section 208 & 210 of the Bhartiya Nyayik Sanhita." "As offences under Sections 208 & 210 BNS are punishable with imprisonment which may extend for a period of one month only, there is no apprehension of the applicant being arrested upon his appearance before the trial court in facing trial of offences under Sections 208 & 210 BNS." "The applicant ought to have made this request to the authorities of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and he is still at liberty to make this request to the authorities or before the trial court which request shall be considered and dealt with in accordance with law." "In absence of any illegality having been committed by the authorities of the Revenue Intelligence and by the trial court, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present application under Section 528 BNSS." Core principles established include the strict adherence to lawful summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the limited scope for excusing non-appearance on medical grounds without continuous and credible evidence, and the procedural requirement to seek permission for alternative modes of appearance timely. The Court reaffirmed the authority of trial courts to take cognizance and proceed with trial where summons are ignored without sufficient cause. Final determinations are that the summoning order is valid, the applicant's non-appearance constitutes prima facie offences under Sections 208 and 210 BNS, the medical evidence is insufficient to excuse non-appearance, and the application to quash the proceedings is dismissed. The applicant remains free to appear and raise all available pleas before the trial court, including requests for appearance through authorized representatives or video conferencing.
|
