MANIKLAL SONI, Vs. UNION OF INDIA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE in SCA No. 122/84. Shri H. M. Mehta waives service of notice for the respondents and agrees to have the matter heard today.

(2.) THE petitioners in these cases, four in the first and two in the second, have filed these petitions seeking stay of the departmental proceedings under the Customs Act taken up against them pending the disposal of Criminal Case No. 639/83 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The 3rd respondent, the Assistant Collector (Preventive) Customs Headquarters filed a criminal complaint in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Ahmedabad against 22 persons incuding the petitioners in the two cases. Summons have been issued on taking cognizance of this. While the criminal proceeding is thus pending, proceedings have been taken up by issue of show cause notices to the petitioners and certain others as to why action should not be taken under the Customs Act in regard to violation of the provisions of the Act by them. The plea of the petitioners is that on identical facts and circumstances departmental proceedings under the Customs Act are being taken and therefore it is appropriate that these proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of the criminal proceedings. In support of the prejudice that may be caused to them it is pointed out by the petitioners that by being called upon to answer the departmental proceedings the petitioners may be compelled to disclose their defence prematurely, that this will prejudice their defence in the criminal proceedings, that this will violate the guarantee under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and further that there is likelihood of all the petitioners being called upon to appear in the customs cases as witnesses and compelled to speak to matters which may be incriminating. It is further pointed out that one of the petitioners in one of these petitions, viz. the first petitioner in SCA No. 122/84 has been so summoned as a witness and is being cross -examined.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the proceedings before the Customs Authorities are not criminal proceedings and the petitioners are not accused in such proceedings. They are no doubt accused in the criminal proceeding taken up against 22 persons including them and it is evidently the petitioners' case that calling upon them to disclose their defence in reply to the show cause notice would be testimonial compulsion falling within Article 20(3) of the Constitution and for that reason the proceedings will necessarily have to be stayed as otherwise there would be infringement of the guarantee under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution.