LAWS(KER)-1988-11-66

V.M. KUNHIMOHAMMED Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS

Decided On November 18, 1988
V.M. Kunhimohammed Appellant
V/S
SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Proceedings are only at the threshold. The petitioner's grievance is however, that he may be fastened with what is stated in Exts. P4(a) and P4(b) without an opportunity to put forward his case in relation to a mahazar which had been allegedly prepared and destroyed. Petitioner's case is that he is an innocent religious scholar, who had come to India after working in the gulf countries for some time. He met with an accident and was under treatment. It was while so that certain officials of the 3rd respondent's department visited the petitioner's house and snatched away a piece of gold from a locket worn by the petitioner's wife. According to the petitioner he is innocent and he is not guilty of any offences under the Customs Act or under the Central Excises and Salt Act. Nevertheless the respondents are attempting to connect him with one P.T. Mohammed, a distant relation of his. This Mohammed himself was intercepted while he was travelling by bus bound for Guruvayur and a substantial amount of Indian currency was recovered from him. It is stated that the bus in which he was travelling was stopped by the officials, the passengers were searched and the amount recovered from Mohammed. The officials then asked two local persons who actually witnessed the incident to go to the Customs Office the next day for attesting the mahazar that was prepared by them. This mahazar has subsequently been destroyed by the officials on afterthought. Petitioner and Mohammed were arrested and they have been made to sign certain papers prepared as mahazar as also statement. These are Exts. P4(a) and P4(b). Petitioner's apprehension is that these documents which according to him, are created by the respondents, will be made use of against him without reference to the original mahazar prepared and subsequently torn off. Petitioner says that the truth of his averments will be testified by the affidavits which he has filed in this Court of the driver and the conductor of the bus as also of one Viswanathan, which are marked as Exts. P6 to P8. Petitioner therefore, seeks to quash the mahazars Exts. P4(a) and all the proceedings leading thereto and emulating therefrom as also to forbear the respondents from initiating proceedings based on the strength of Exts. P4(a) and P4(b).

(2.) AS stated earlier, the proceedings are only at the threshold. Further steps have to be taken in relation to the adjudication of the offence, if any, of which the petitioner is guilty or in relation to the alleged violation of the Customs Act or any other enactment. The only thing that has happened is that a mahazar and a statement have been prepared marked Exts. P4(a) and P4(b). Petitioner will have ample opportunities to put forward his case if and when any proceedings are initiated. The question whether the original mahazar prepared should be accepted or not whether any reliance should be placed on Exts. P4(a) and P4(b) are all matters which necessarily will have to be investigated upon if the petitioner raises any contention in that regard before the adjudicating authority. The question as to which of the versions is correct, whether of the petitioner or that of the respondents is again a matter which it is not for this court to adjudicate upon at this preliminary stage. It is for the petitioner to raise his contentions before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority will necessarily have to apply its mind to all the contentions of the petitioner about the acceptability or otherwise of Exts. P4(a) and P4(b) or as to whether he should act upon the mahazar, which is stated to have been prepared earlier. All these are matters to be decided primarily by the adjudicating authority. The petitioner's approach to this court is premature. I have no doubt that the adjudicating authority who is exercising statutory functions will necessarily go into these matters in passing final orders in the matter. The original petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. Issue photo copy on usual terms.