JACOB THOMAS Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S.482 of the Code to quash the charges framed in C.C. 65/85, on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam.

(2.) Petitioner and three others, are alleged to have exported 5.9118 Kgs. of Heroin under the guise that it was canned crab meat and canned shrimps. Offences alleged are under S.7 and 38 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, S.135 of the Customs Act, 1982 and S.120B, 420, 465 and 477A IPC. Value of the commodity exported is approximately Rs. 25 lakhs. Consignor was named T. P. Moideenkutty, Panicker's Road, Calicut, a fictitious character. Customs Authorities at Manchester examined the cargo of 192 cans of what was described as crab meat and shrimp on landing, analysed and found it to be Heroin. U. KL. Customs Authorities sent photostat copies of airways bill etc. to Cochin Customs. Pws. 1 and 2, Assistant Collector and Investigating Officer were examined, and Exts. P1 to P108 were produced.

(3.) Prosecution case very briefly stated is that petitioner acting under a fictitious name T. P. Moideenkutty, went to M/s Harrisons & Crosefields Ltd. who are shipping agents and agents for Swiss Air and booked the consignment. M/s. Sunilkumar, Fernandez and Ms Shirly Johnson of M/s. Harrisons & Crosefields are cited to prove this. According to Investigating Officer, T. P. Moideenkutty the consignor named, ia a fictitious name. Exts. P18, P18(a), P18(b), P19 and P19(a) to (d) are produced to prove this. Ext. P13 is the shipping bill, on the reverse of which is a declaration that the cargo conforms to specification, quality and description in the shipping bill, signed by 'Moideenkutty'. One V. Narayanan Pillai, Proprietor, Jaya Enterprises is cited to prove, chat petitioner and another hired his machine for sealing cans, and to prove that a brownish powder packed in polythene bags, was put in tins containing crab meat. One Ms. Elizabeth Cherian is cited to prove that petitioner and another approached her to bribe customs officers. Several exhibits are produced. During the course of hearing, an affidavit dated 29-1-88 was filed by the 1st respondent stating that Department had initiated steps to secure presence of Mr. Tomliason and Mrs. Susan Irene May Johncock of U. K. to prove the documents received from U. K. Customs and produced at trial. Attested or notorised copies of the documents were appended to the affidavit. I do no not propose to rely on these. Prosecution could have examined these witnesses before charges were framed. It was faintly suggested that the then learned magistrate did not consider it necessary. Anyway, this petition mast be decided on the material already on record.