Shri Ritesh Kumar Soni vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The applicant, Shri Ritesh Kumar Soni, sought to quash a summoning order dated August 24, 2023, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in a complaint case under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The complaint alleged recovery of 1211.220 grams of foreign gold, valued at Rs. 62,98,344.00, from the applicant and a co-accused, Vikas Rastogi. The applicant contended the complaint was bogus, lacked independent witnesses, and relied on a co-accused's confession and call detail reports, which he argued were not legal evidence. The Revenue (Union of India) countered that the applicant, a gold trader, purchased gold bullion from the co-accused, traded in cash without records, and had a GST registration. The Revenue asserted that the co-accused's voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, along with the applicant's own statement admitting to purchasing smuggled gold, constituted sufficient evidence.

Held

The Court held that the summoning order dated August 24, 2023, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, was a legal and valid order. The Court found no substance in the arguments advanced by the applicant. It reasoned that the statement made by the co-accused, Vikas Rastogi, under Section 108 of the Customs Act was not the sole basis for the summoning order. The applicant's own statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitting to purchasing smuggled gold from Vikas Rastogi and trading in cash without maintaining records, was also a crucial piece of evidence. The Court emphasized the legal and evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, citing various Supreme Court decisions, and stated that such statements are admissible in evidence and stand on a different footing compared to statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. The Court concluded that there was sufficient prima facie evidence against the applicant, and the Magistrate had applied his judicial mind to the facts and evidence before taking cognizance and issuing the summoning order. The application was accordingly rejected, and the impugned summoning order was confirmed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summoning order dated August 24, 2023, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, under Section 135 of the Customs Act, is sustainable in law, considering the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, specifically the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the absence of independent witnesses? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 135 of the Customs Act and evidentiary value of Section 108 statements). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the complaint was bogus and the summoning order was passed cursorily without judicial application of mind. He contended that the confession of the co-accused, Vikas Rastogi, and the call detail reports were not legal evidence. He also highlighted the lack of independent witnesses to the alleged recovery and stated he had no criminal history. The applicant submitted that mere mobile chats with the co-accused did not constitute an offense. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue argued that the grounds taken by the applicant were frivolous. They submitted that the co-accused's voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was sufficient to show the applicant's involvement. They further stated that the applicant admitted in his own statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act to purchasing approximately 300 grams of smuggled gold from the co-accused, providing ample evidence of his involvement in illicit trade. The Revenue asserted that the trial court, after analyzing the evidence, took cognizance and summoned the accused.