Page 165 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] RUJIRA NAROOLA v. UNION OF INDIA 147

14. The summons was to the following effect :
“Sub : Issuance of Summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
I have been directed to issue summons to you under Section 108 of the
Customs Act, 1962, to appear before the Additional/Joint Commissioner of
Customs on 8th April, 2019 at 12.00 hours at the office chamber of the Addi-
tional Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Admin.), Custom House, 15/1,
Stand Road, Kolkata in person, in connection to the offence under Section
133 of the Customs Act, 1962 on your arrival at NSCBI Airport, Kolkata on
15/16-3-2019 by Thai Airways flight No. TG-313.
Your presence is required for giving evidence thereto and or produce
documents or things (in your possession) related to the said matter.
Non-compliance of this summons is an offence under Sections 174 &
175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Please note that giving false evidence in these proceedings is an of-
fence punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860”
15. Very short issues but very important and interesting from the legal
standpoint have arisen in this case.
16. The said impugned notice required the presence of the appellant on
8th April, 2019 at Noon “in connection to the offence under Section 133 of the
Customs Act 1962.”
17. Section 133 of the Customs Act is the offence of obstruction to a
Customs Officer, if any person intentionally obstructs any officer of Customs in
the exercise of his duty. Such person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
18. The question which immediately arises is whether the Customs au-
thorities have been at all empowered to investigate or inquire into this offence by
the Customs Act, 1962 or by any other law.
19. Mr. Chowdhury, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appel-
lant submits that they have no such power and that in the absence of such power
this notice under Section 108 could not have been issued. The power is with the
police under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Additional Solicitor Gen-
eral appearing for the Customs authorities showed us Sections 4 and 5 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and argued that if those provisions were applied,
the Customs authorities could exercise the power of investigation.
20. He added that the use of the phrase “in connection to the offence”
suggested that the summons could cover any alleged contravention, violation,
action, etc. under the Customs Act, 1962.
21. It was wide enough to cover the contravention of smuggling of gold
and other contraventions of the Customs Act, 1962.
22. Mr. Chowdhury, Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant also
submitted that two parallel investigations could not be carried out, one by the
Customs and one by the police. This would be against the law, most arbitrary
and unjust.
23. Learned Additional Solicitor General contended that Section 26 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897 permited this kind of parallel investigation.
24. Mr. Chowdhury also submitted which was controverted by the
Learned Additional Solicitor General that the subject summons was not issued
according to the mandate of the said Section and was thus invalid.
25. our prima facie observation is that in the complaint made by the Cus-
toms authorities to the police only obstruction caused to them by the appellant
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  165