TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ider that such power should be exercised sparingly and the same has been considered in paragraph-17 of the judgement in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer [ 2023 (7) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT] . The writ petition is not entertained - petition dismissed. - Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi And Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Namit Srivastava,Sarthak Verma For the Respondent : A.S.G.I.,Dhananjay Awasthi ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. This writ petition is preferred praying for the following reliefs : I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not to arrest the petitioner agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned must have reason to believe that a person sought to be arrested has been guilty of such an offence. 4. It is further submitted that if any person is summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of recording of his statement, the provisions of Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 cannot be invoked and no FIR should be registered before the power of arrest under the Customs Act is invoked. In such circumstances, the person summoned cannot invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. He has also placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 in which the Apex Court has observed that a claim for prearrest protection is ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e power to release on bail upon arrest in respect of the offences committed under the two enactments which are uniformly non-cognizable. Both Section 9-A of the 1944 Act and Section 104(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, provide that notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences under both the Acts would be non-cognizable. 67. The arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties in Om Prakash v. Union of India [WP (Cri) No. 66 of 2011] and other similar cases under the Central Excise Act, 1944 are equally applicable in Choith Nanikram Harchandani v. Union of India (WP (Cri) No. 74 of 2010) and the other connected vrit petitions in respect of the Customs Act, 1962. 68. Accordingly, on the same reasoning, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
