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

2005 (3) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... national at his residential premises bearing No. C-163, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, which was raided by the officials of the respondent, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), on 3rd of June, 2004 in connection with investigation in regard to import of MPEG cards by aforesaid firms by misdeclaring and under valuing the same as PCB. On being so required, the petitioner appeared before the concerned DRI officials at 1300 hrs on the same very day to join investigation when he allegedly made a voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitting that the aforesaid firms importing the MPEG cards by mis-declaring and under valuing the same as PCB were being controlled by him during the relevant period. He undertook to de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e local market through one Shahji and that it was the petitioner himself who had arranged the money to be given to foreign suppliers. 4.In regard to his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the plea on behalf of the petitioner is that he was actually forced to make that statement and that the same, subsequently, stands retracted by him. In regard to various payments alleged to have been made in part payment of the customs duty evaded, it is contended that the petitioner was compelled to make the same in order to save himself from being arrested and such payments, thus, could not be taken to amount to an acknowledgment on his part of his involvement in the commission of offence complained of. 5.This apart, it is submitted that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... decision of this Court in Del Agha v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2002 (1) CC Cases (HC) 152; Sanjiv Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 268 (Del.) = 2001 (1) JCC Delhi 146; Subhash Chanana v. State, 1994 CRI. L.J. 2370 (Delhi High Court); Rama Swaroop v. The State (Delhi Admn.) and Others, 1986 CRI. L.J. 526; Wajinder Singh etc. v. State, 1979 Rajdhani Law Reporter 381; and some other High Courts were also referred to in support of plea opposing the grant of petition. 8.Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, laid utmost emphasis on his contention that the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, is a bailable one and therefore the petitioner even otherwise deserve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... If punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only. Non-cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate 11.The offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act is punishable with imprisonment extending to three years or with fine or with both. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner sought to maintain that the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) would fall under Entry 3 of Table II and borrows support to his contention in this regard from the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court in Subhash Chaudhary (supra). Having gone through the decision in Subhash Chaudhary (supra), it is difficult to subscribe to the view taken therein as the same would appear to suffer from inherent contradictions. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gle judge ought not have imposed such conditions on the Directorate." 13.In yet another case, the State (through Deputy Commr. of Police, Special Branch), Delhi v. Jaspal Singh Gill (supra), a similar view was taken. Clearly, the petitioner would deserve no concession on the ground of ill-health. The incriminating evidence brought out in the course of hearing, prima facie, reflects the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of crime complained of. The investigation is still underway and the allegations against the petitioner of not fully co-operating in investigation cannot be lost sight of. In Dukhishyam Benepani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (supra), the Supreme Court observed that a b .....

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