SHAKTI HALDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 401 read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 15.7.2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C-863/98 under Sections 135(1)(a)(i) and 135(1 )(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and for quashing the said criminal proceeding.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the above application are that on 10.01.95 on search of the person of one Sukumar Sue in front of Burdwan Railway Station by the Customs Officers, six pieces of gold biscuits of foreign origin, worth of Rs. 3,36,275/-, could be recovered from a cloth-bag in his hand. The said Sue was brought to Customs House, Calcutta where after thorough search the said gold biscuits were seized as he failed to produce any valid document for licit possession of the same and on a reasonable belief that those were illegally imported. During enquiry, as the name of the present petitioner transpired he was impleaded as an accused. In the adjudication proceeding the said gold biscuits were confiscated and penalty was imposed upon both the accused viz. Sue and the present petitioner to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively. The appeal preferred by the present petitioner before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was allowed on 05.10.99 while that of Sue was dismissed. In the said complaint case being C-863/98 filed by the Superintendent of Customs, Preventive & Intelligence Branch, Headquarters, West Bengal on 20.03.98 before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, both the accused filed an application which was rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta on 03.07.2002, and the revision before this Court being CRR 2126/2002 was dismissed holding that the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate has territorial jurisdiction to try the case. During hearing of the said CRR 2126/2002, learned Advocate for the Customs Authorities, on instruction, expressed intention not to proceed against the present petitioner whereupon this Court observed that the authority will be at liberty to make such prayer before the learned Trial Magistrate. On 15.07.2003 the petitioner filed an application praying for discharge as he was exonerated from all the charges in the departmental proceeding and on the self-same fact and materials the criminal proceeding cannot continue and that the learned Advocate for the Customs Authorities, on instruction, submitted before this Court that they will not proceed against the petitioner which was rejected by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 15.07.2003.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court.