BAXU KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed for restraining the respondents from harassing and coercing the petitioner to give a confessional statement against their wish and from curtailing their liberty and for directing them to take their affidavits as their statements under Section 108, Customs Act (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'). These writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and law involved in them are same.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these writ petitions may be summerised thus. On August 24, 1993, the Customs Superintendent, Nachna, Range Jaisalmer arrested Ata Mohd. son of Dene Khan, resident of Panche ka Tala, P.S. Nachna (Jaisalmer), on his information 16 tins of Acetic Anhydride were recovered, a complaint under Section 25(a), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was filed in the court of the special Judge (NDPS), Jodhpur against Ata Mohd., the case was decided on March 31,1994 and accused Ata Mohd. was acquitted. The custom officers of Jaisalmer and Nachna are repeatedly calling the petitioners for recording their statements under Section 108 of the Act. Every time they stated that they are not at all connected in any way with the said Acetic Anhydride but the custom officers are bent upon connecting the petitioners in the said Acetic Anhydride and to record their confessional statements to involve them in the recovery of the said Acetic Anhydride. On May 20,1994, they sent their affidavits Annexure 1, to the Custom Superintendent (respondent No. 1) through registered A.D. post. The custom officers of Jaisalmer and Nachna are still harassing the petitioners and putting them under duress, undue influence and coercion to give their confessional statements in the said matter.

(3.) SECTION 107 of the Act empowers an authorised customs officer to examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and require any person to produce any document or thing relevant to the enquiry in connection with the smuggling of any goods. Section 108 enshrines that any gazetted officer of the Customs shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document in any inquiry which such officer is making in connection with the smuggling of any goods. It further requires that .persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by authorised Agent as such officer may direct and persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth and to produce such documents. Of course these provisions do not permit the custom officers to coerce or compel or to put under coercion or undue influence or to use any third degree methods while examining a person summoned by him. If any custom officer violates these principles, it would always be open to the person concerned to complain of the same whenever these statements are sought to be used. If the allegations are established, certainly no body would rely or take note of them. The custom officers are not primarily concerned with the detention and punishment of a crime but are mainly interested in the detection and prevention of smuggling of contraband articles and safeguarding recovery of custom duties. They are more concerned with the smuggled goods rather than the offenders who smuggle goods.