Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (2) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the parties briefly are that an FIR dated 30th April, 1994 was registered under Sections 420, 468 and 471, IPC, inter alia, stating that on scrutiny Registers and documents it has come to the notice of Assistant Collector of Customs that three exporters, namely, M/s. Rancan Impex Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Noida Medicare Centre Limited and M/s. Apollo Impex and their Customs House Agent M/s. Aditi Services have exported certain consignments by forging the signatures on the shipping bills. The investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Umesh Singh. The petitioner claims that he is being falsely implicated in the case and he is neither the employee nor Director and/or owner of any of the three companies. One Ram Niwas, Customs House Agent, was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... attendance of the petitioner was necessary for purposes of enquiry which the Customs Department was making in connection with the smuggling of goods. They say that the petitioner is not a person accused of any offence and that summons have been issued not to investigate the offences for which FIR was registered but have been issued in the course of summons into the violation of the provisions of the Customs Act. They have also pleaded that Ram Niwas had stated that the goods were not in conformity with the papers filed and the same were grossly over invoiced which indicates that the exporters stood to benefit under the provisions of DEEC/Advance Licensing Scheme. According to respondents there was no constitutional bar in conducting an inv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... but may well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available, therefore, to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to commission of an offence has been levelled which in the normal course may result in prosecution. The Supreme Court further held : "Considered in this light, the guarantee under Article 20(3) would be available in the present cases to these petitioners against whom a First Information Report has been recorded as accused therein. It would extend to any compulsory process for production of evidentiary documents which are reasonably likely to support a prosecution against them. The question then that arises next is whether search warrants for the seizure of such documents from the custod .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt by a person accused of an offence, orally or in writing. (3) To bring the statement in question within the prohibition of Article 20(3), the person accused must have stood in the character of an accused person at the time he made the statement. It is not enough that he should become an accused, any time after the statement has been made. 7. Both the aforesaid decisions were also taken note of in Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah and Another v. D.K. Guha and Others, AIR 1973 SC 1196. The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the Government that the petitioner had not been specifically named as an accused in the First Information Report and, therefore, he is not entitled to the protection under Article 20(3). Holding that the petitioner is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n are required to be answered. Further the contention that the appellant was within his right to insist on presence of Lawyer on the basis of Article 21 of the Constitution was rejected. It was held that there was no force in the argument that if a person is called away from his house and questioned in the atmosphere of Customs office without the assistance of his Lawyer or friends, his constitutional right under Article 21 is violated. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the petitioner is accused of an offence in respect of the FIR noticed hereinbefore within the meaning of Article 20(3) and cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. But the scope of offence under the aforesaid FIR and scope of enqu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates