DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can an Investigating Officer direct a statutory authority to produce a document or thing for the purpose of investigation of a crime?

(2.) Aggrieved by an order passed by the Additional Sessions JudgeII, Thiruvananthapuram, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs of the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) The petitioner was served with Annexure A1 order passed under Sec. 94 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ('BNSS', in short), directing him to furnish the details of the customs officers who were on duty in the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on 9/7/2025 between 06.00 p.m. and 09.00 p.m., including their designation, official addresses and mobile numbers. The petitioner states that he is not obliged to collect, collate and provide information to the 2 nd respondent. The petitioner was neither a party to the application nor afforded an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Annexure A2 application to review the Annexure A1 order. However, by Annexure A4 order, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that a criminal court does not have the power to review its own order. Under Sec. 94 of the BNSS (corresponding to Sec. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), a witness can only be directed to produce a document or thing that is in his possession or control. Hence, Annexures A1 and A4 orders may be set aside.