SUDHIR GULATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to summons dated 30th April 1994 and 2nd May 1994 issued by Air Customs Superintendent under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 requiring the attendance of the petitioner in connection with the enquiry being made regarding export by M/s Rancan Impex. The petitioner contends that the said summons are violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties briefly are that an FIR dated 30th April 1994 was registered under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, interalia, stating that on scrutiny of 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 Custom 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, Custom House Agent, was arrested in connection with this case. The bail application of Ram Niwas was rejected by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 5th May 1994. The order of learned Magistrate, interalia, notices that co-accused Sudhir Gulati (Petitioner) has not yet been arrested and, therefore, it was not found to be a fit case to grant bail to Ram Niwas. The petitioner was, however, granted anticipatory bail by order dated 16th May 1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. That order, interalia, notices that according to prosecution Ram Niwas had made a disclosure statement to the effect that Sudhir Gulati had handed over shipping bill to him which included the signatures of Assistant Collector. The petitioner was arrested on 22nd May 1994 but was released because of anticipatory bail order. According to the petitioner the aforesaid sequence of events show that the respondents were clear that the petitioner was an accused and, therefore, the issuance of the impugned summons contravenes Article 20(3) of the Constitution which provides that no person accused in any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

(3.) According to respondents Ram Niwas in his voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 30th April 1994, 1st May 1994 and 2nd May 1994 had clearly stated that the petitioner was instrumental in carrying on clandestine export of goods on forged documents. As per case set up by the respondents, the 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 investigation 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 investigation and enquiry under the Customs Act for examining the aspect of the smuggling of goods.