DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs. VINOD KUMAR MULANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as the "department"), by way of the present petition, has challenged the order dated 10.09.2010, passed by the learned ACMM granting bail to the respondent in the matter titled, "Vinod Kumar Mulani v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence" on the ground that the learned ACMM exceeded his jurisdiction in granting bail to the respondent.

(2.) The brief facts necessitating the disposal of the present petition are that, on the basis of an intelligence input about the operation of a syndicate involved in the fraudulent availment of duty drawback by exporting inferior quality garments in the name of bogus front firms, searches were conducted at various places including the residence of the respondent. Several incriminating material was collected from the residence of the respondent. Thereafter, several witnesses were examined by the department and their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The involvement of the respondent was said to be mentioned in the statements so recorded by the department. The respondent was also summoned several times under Section 108 of the Act, however, he failed to comply with the summons. Thereafter, on 06.09.2010, the wife of the respondent filed a bail application qua the respondent in the Court of learned ACMM. The learned ACMM vide order dated 07.09.2010, granted interim bail to the respondent. The aforesaid order was challenged in this Court on the ground of maintainability of the bail application, which was disposed off vide order dated 10.09.2010 with the direction to raise all such pleas before the learned ACMM. Thereafter, after hearing the arguments from both parties the learned ACMM granted bail to the respondent vide order dated 10.09.2010. The department has challenged this order of the learned ACMM on the ground of maintainability of the bail application. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner department submitted that offences under the Act are non-bailable and non-cognizable. It was submitted that the respondent Vinod Kumar Mulani had been summoned by the department on several occasions for enquiry under Section 108 of the Act, however he failed to comply with the summons. It was submitted that, the learned ACMM while dismissing an application of the respondent for release of certain documents and currency seized from his residence, observed that the respondent had failed to join the investigation. It was further submitted that the department had filed an application dated 03.11.2009, before the learned CMM requesting for the transfer of the case from the Court of ACMM to any other competent Court. The present respondent thereafter, surrendered before the same ACMM. It was further submitted that no formal accusation or complaint had been registered against the respondent and the matter was pending investigation. Therefore, the learned ACMM had no jurisdiction to entertain the bail application of the respondent under Section 437 CrPC. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, at the stage where the respondent has not been formally accused, as no case has been registered against him, and he has merely been summoned by the Custom authorities under Section 108 of the Act for enquiry, the learned ACMM exceeded his jurisdiction by granting the respondent regular bail under Section 437 CrPC.