BADRI PRASAD SHARMA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 439 Crl.P.C. read with Section 482 thereof for grant of bail to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is in custody since December 1993. A complaint was filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1962. The complaint is dated 23rd September 1993. As per facts disclosed in the complaint on 22.12.1992 on the basis of message received from C.B.I, the officers of Headquarters, Customs Preventive, took over from Shri S.B. Sinha, DSP (CBI), 51 silver slabs with foreign markings and 59 empty jute wrappings, reported to have been recovered by them from farm house Satbari Village, New Delhi vide their recovery memo dated 21st December 1992, in the presence of two witnesses and one Kundan Lal who was reported to be found guarding the silver when the CBI officers visited the farm house. All the silver slabs except one were certified as of 999.9% purity. They collectively weigh 1709.78 Kg. and were valued at Rs.l,12,84,548.00 . As no evidence for the lawful import/purchase etc. was available with Kundan Lal or anybody else, the same were, therefore, seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962, on the reasonable belief that the same had been smuggled into India in violation of the restrictions imposed on import of silver and were liable to be confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act.

(3.) So far as the case made out against the petitioner is concerned, it is based on statements of various persons recorded by the department. The statements were recorded in the process of investigations regarding the same offence. The statements form part of the complaints and most of these persons are named as accused in the first complaint. At this stage it is worth noting that complaint had been earlier filed by the department on 18th February 1993 naming six persons as accused therein. The said complaint was also for the same offence and a comparison of the said complaint with the complaint in the present case shows that both are almost identical. In the present complaint besides the petitioner one more person named Ravi have been named accused. One of the grievances made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no fresh material is disclosed in the second complaint in which the petitioner has been named as an accused and if that is so why the petitioner was not named as an accused in the first complaint itself. The sanctions for the two complaints are identical. All the same there are two complaints for which independent sanctions were given and there is nothing on record to show that any attempt has been made by the prosecution to have the two complaints consolidated.