Page 166 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

604 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2020 (373) E.L.T. 604 (Cal.)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.
MENKA GAMBHIR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
W.P. Nos. 7865(W) with 7489(W) of 2019, decided on 17-6-2020
Summons - Proceedings under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 quasi-
judicial in nature - Person issuing summons to satisfy qualitative ingredients
as prescribed in said Section - Refusal by petitioners to show passport while
passing through green channels - Customs Authority free to inquire into any
violation of Act - However, Additional Commissioner who issued summons to
petitioners not inquiry officer - No opinion formed by him regarding attend-
ance of petitioners - Petitioner were directed to appear before another Addi-
tional Commissioner who was also not inquiry officer - When a statute pro-
vides that the power under Section 108 ibid must be exercised in a certain
manner, then such power has to be wielded in the same manner and none oth-
er - Summons issued to petitioners to be quashed. [paras 13, 14]
Inquiry - Allegation that some unknown police officers entered inter-
national arrival hall of Kolkata Airport, and assisted writ petitioners to exit the
gate of Customs - Complaint against petitioners and unknown police official
in this regard filed with jurisdictional police station by Assistant Commis-
sioner of Customs - Order by Magistrate permitting the police authorities to
investigate into offence and investigation in progress - Statements of several
witnesses under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 recorded and
CCTV footage obtained from the airport authorities - Police acted upon com-
plaint from Customs by taking magisterial approval under Section 155 ibid -
Customs lost its jurisdiction to inquire any further in respect of complaint and
restrained from making parallel inquiry. [para 12]
Petition disposed of
CASES CITED
Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra — (1980) 4 SCC 600 — Referred .......................... [Para 8]
R.P. Kapur v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon — (1961) 2 SCR 143 — Referred ..................................... [Para 7]
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India — (2018) 8 SCC 501 — Referred ........................................... [Para 7]
Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh — (2003) 6 SCC 175 — Referred ................. [Para 8]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Advocate, Arijit
Chakraborty, Amit Kumar Nag, Sanjay Basu, Samik
Chakraborty, Piyush Agrawal, Prabir Bera and Sujit
Ghosh, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Aman Lekhi, Add. Solicitor General, Supreme
Court of India, Abhratosh Majumdar, Addl.
Advocate General, Tapan Bhanja, Partha
Chakraborty, K.K. Maiti, Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee,
Amitabrata Roy, T.M. Siddiqui and Avra Majumdar,
for the Respondent.
[Order]. - In the respective separate petitions, the petitioners pray :
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  166