Union of India vs S.P. Goyal

Sabina, J.—Vide this order the above mentioned two petitions will be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of the criminal Complaint No. 394-I dated 9-4-2002 under Sections 109, 112, 383, 384, 499, 500, 501, 506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 8-6-2002 is liable to be quashed. The officials were merely acting in discharge of their official duties. The goods exported by the complainant were seized and it was found that the value of the goods had not been properly disclosed by the complainant. In fact, the goods worth Rs. 1,95,000/- had been shown to be of value worth Rs. 84,00,000/- . The complainant had over valued the goods imported by it with a view to take the benefit of Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB for short). The fact that the complainant had over valued the goods was upheld in a litigation up to the Apex Court. However, the detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA for short) was set aside by this Court. The officials of Union of India could not be summoned to face the trial for offence under Sections 384/500 IPC. The allegation qua extortion levelled against accused John Joseph were just to pressurise the officials by the complainant. As per Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act for short) no legal proceedings shall lie against the officials of the Central Government qua anything done under the Act in good faith. Moreover, no action could be taken against the officials for anything under the Act without giving one month''s previous notice in writing to the Central Government or after the expiry of three months'' of accrual of such cause.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the officials had got the news item published against the complainant with a view to defame him. The detention order passed under the COFEPOSA had been set aside by this Court. Petitioner John Joseph had demanded a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- for saving the complainant from the detention order and had pressurised him to withdraw the criminal complaint at Ludhiana. However, the complainant had refused to pay the said amount. The detention order was got published in the news paper.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions deserve to be allowed.

Press note dated 30-8-2000 (Annexure P-5) reads as under :-

Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India specially empowered under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F. No. 673/26/2000-Cus.v11, dated 21-7-2000 under the said sub-section, directing that Shri S.P. Goyal, son of Sh. Jagat Ram Goyal, resident of 201 Krishna Chambers, 59, New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400 020. Proprietor of M/s. Chirag Exports and Imports, Industrial Area "A" Ludhiana/103A Krishna Chambers, 59, New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400 020 and Partner of M/s. Merchant Exports (India) 864, Industrial Area "A" Ludhiana/103A Krishna Chambers, 59, New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400 020 be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prisor, Mumbai with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future.

Whereas Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appeal before the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazzette.

The petitioners were acting in discharge of their official duties. The complainant was to export ball point pens. However, it was found that the said ball point pens were over valued for the purpose of DEPB. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the complainant. Admittedly, the matter qua over valuation of the goods was upheld up to the Apex Court. The complainant was also sought to be summoned qua order of detention passed under the COFEPOSA. However, the said detention order was set aside by this Court in a petition filed by the complainant. It is not a case where any publication had been made qua the detention order without there been any such order. Although the detention order had been set aside by this Court but the authorities had passed the detention order against the complainant under the COFEPOSA. The officials were acting in discharge of their official duty and had passed the detention order in good faith.

The allegations that accused John Joseph had raised a demand of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the complainant appears to have been levelled by the complainant as a counter blast. In the present case, no money has been paid by the complainant to the accused. Only an oral allegation has been levelled against the official John Joseph that a demand of Rs. 25,00,000/- had been made by him. It is very easy to level such kind of allegations against an officer, who had been acting in discharge of his official duty in order to save ones own skin. One of the petitions has been filed by Union of India seeking quashing of the complaint on behalf of its official and one petition has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint by the officials themselves. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the officials, who were acting in discharge of their official duty, would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. In case the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, then in every case of raid or seizure it would be difficult for an official to perform his duty fearlessly.

Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed. Complaint No. 394-1 dated 9-2002 under Sections 109, 112, 383, 384, 499, 500, 501, 506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, are quashed.