Calcutta High Court Decides on the Jurisdictional Authority of Customs Officials Under the Customs Act

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The Customs officials at the Kolkata Airport detained the wife and sister of an MP. Officials filed a complaint against them. A summons is issued as a part of the investigation. They file an appeal to the Calcutta High Court under the present writ petition.

Facts of the Case

Ms Rujira Naroola and Ms Menka Gambhir were two VIP passengers returning from Thailand. The officers from Customs stopped them for mandatory checks. The passengers initially showed resistance, but later complied. 

The checks showed that there were three bags of jewellery. As a result, officials instructed them to let the lady officer inspect the bag. But the passengers were hostile. So, the officers moved them to a separate room. However, after finding out that one of them is the wife of an MP they let them go.

After the incident, complaints were brought against them. Senior customs officials agreed to look into the matter. However, on 22 March 2019, they filed a complaint against the passengers. They filed the complaint under Section 186/503 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 133 of the Customs Act. Both of the sections relate to preventing the public servant from doing his duty. 

Contentions by the State

The Additional Advocate General represented the State. The Customs officers lodged written information to the jurisdictional police station. The jurisdictional police authority requested for investigating the offence. As a result, the Ld. Magistrate passed an order permitting them for investigating the offence. Investigations began and several statements made by the witness were recorded. 

But on 26 March 2019, the Customs officers issued the summons. They issued the summons to the petitioners under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Additional Advocate General pointed out that this is not necessary.

The Magistrate had committed the case to the investigating officers. Hence, the acts of the Customs officials were not within the jurisdiction. The position of law relating to the investigating power of Customs officer is dubious. He agreed that the officers did not have the authority to conclude an investigation. 

Contentions by the Passengers 

It was said that the Customs officers had no authority or right to investigate the case. Neither do they have this right as they had already handed the case over to the local police. Hence, the summons raised is void in nature.

The counsel points out that Section 133 of the Customs Act is not accompanied by a penalty. The language of the Section does not impose any penalty for the same. On the issue of the summons, the counsel refers to Section 108 of the Act. The customs officers did not follow the above-mentioned Section of the Act. 

Contentions by the Customs Officer 

The Additional Solicitor General appeared on behalf of the Customs officer. He stated that the summons is not without jurisdiction. It is to enforce an established right and not to establish the right.

Further, it highlighted the quasi-judicial powers of the Courts. The advocate pointed out that issuing summons is for investigation purpose. It is not conclusive in deciding anything. 

Decision of the Court

The Court took into consideration the various arguments presented before it. There was an effort made on its behalf to reason the case laws mentioned as well. It agrees with the reasoning given by the Additional Advocate General of the State.

The Court stated that the Customs officers did not have the jurisdiction to send summons. They had handed over the case to the police. As a result, their investigation power does not extend to the same. Hence, the Court ordered to quash the summons.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -