KISHAN SINGH Vs. PEERU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioners who are public servants. Petitioner No.1 is Under Secretary. No.2 is Collector, Customs. No.3 is Superintendent. Central Excise and Customs. No.4 is Inspector, Central Excise. No.5 is Assistant Collector. Customs and Central Excise No.6 is Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise. No.7 is Sepoy. All the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 31-5 1995 passed by the learned AddI. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, No.3. Jodhpur in Criminal Complaint No. 1409 of 1994 (Original No. 5238/84) filed by the non-petitioner rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Sec. 155 of the Customs Act.

(2.) This matter has got a chequerred history. On 2nd March. 1993, the Custom Officers Custom Division, Jodhpur seized a Jonga No. RRN 8716 on the Jodhpur Jaisalmer Road Three persons viz.. Aadam Khan Khuda Bux and Lake Khan were found sitting in the jeep. It was found that the jeep was used for carrying illicit liquor. During interrogation they disclosed that it was loaded by Peeru Lal the non-petitioner and it was to be smuggled to Pakistan through Jaisalmer. Thereupon the liquor was seized. On the next day i.e. 3rd March, 1983 the house of Peeru Lal was searched and 120 bottles of liquor were recovered which were also seized. Peeru Lal also admitted in his statement recorded under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act that the liquor belonged to him which was seized on 3rd March. 1983 from the aforesaid three persons Peeru Lal and others were arrested. He was released on bail on 11-3-1983. Thereafter he filed a complaint directly before the Court of AddI. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.3. Jodhpur against the petitioner accused for beating and stealing property from his premises surprisingly without proper the enquiry learned Magistrate decided to take cognizance against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sees. 330, 342, 219, 454, 384 and 327 IPC On 27-2-1986 an application was submitted before the learned Magistrate by the accused under Sec. 197 Cr. P.C. which was rejected on 18-9-1987. Thereafter on 3-12-1987 another application under Sec. 155 of the Customs Act was filed by the accused. On 1- 2-1994 an application was filed under Sec. 294 Cr. P.C. for submitting the documents in support of the application made by the accused under Sec. 155 Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate. Ultimately by the impugned order dated 31-5-1994 the learned Magistrate rejected the application made by the petitioner under Sec. 155 of the Customs Act, Hence this revision.

(3.) Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case it must be said that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error in dismissing the application by his order dated 31-5-1994. The reason assigned by the learned Judge for rejecting the application under Sec. 155 are wholly untenable. The learned Magistrate ought to have seen that this is nothing but a counter blast by the non-petitioner. In this way the authorities are to be harassed by the accused from whose possession contraband, goods were seized and the same is encouraged by the Court then the officers will not be able to discharge their duty. Sec. 197Cr. P.C. is meant for this type of situation to save the officers from unnecessary harassment. This is a matter of 1983. Now almost 14 years have passed and the matter should be closed. So the petition would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.