Anil Soni And Another vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And Others

Held

The Court held that, based on the submissions made by both parties and a perusal of the impugned Panchnama, a cognizable offence was made out against the petitioners. Consequently, the Court was of the opinion that no interference was warranted under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India, either for quashing the Panchnama or for granting any interim relief. The Court found the petition to lack merit. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition seeking to quash a Panchnama or for interim relief will not be entertained if the Panchnama itself discloses a cognizable offence, and the court finds no reason to interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Facts

The petitioners, Anil Soni and Ritesh Soni, partners of R A Mosum Jeweller, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a Panchnama dated January 27/28, 2023, lodged by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in DRI Case No. 02 of 2023. The Panchnama pertains to alleged offences under Sections 135(1)(i)(A) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated, stating their business involved sending jewellery between Jaipur and Kolkata for redesigning or melting under proper GST guidelines and invoices. They argued the DRI lacked evidence of smuggled gold or evaded import duties. The respondents opposed the petition, asserting the petitioners were involved in gold smuggling and were avoiding summons, and that the Panchnama disclosed a cognizable offence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Panchnama dated 27/28.01.2023, lodged by the DRI in DRI Case No. 02 of 2023, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that no evidence of smuggled gold or evaded import duties has been produced by the revenue, and the allegations are false and baseless, thereby indicating no complicity of the petitioners in the alleged incident, as argued by the petitioners? 2. Whether the respondents' contention that the petitioners are involved in gold smuggling and are avoiding summons, and that the Panchnama discloses a cognizable offence, is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition and refuse any interim relief, as argued by the respondents? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the DRI failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the allegations of smuggled gold or evaded import duties. They asserted their business operations were conducted under proper GST guidelines and invoices, and the Panchnama was based on bald allegations without credible evidence of their involvement. They relied on the principle that a criminal proceeding initiated without evidence is liable to be quashed. Respondent's Contention: The respondents opposed the quashing of the Panchnama, stating that the petitioners were involved in gold smuggling and were evading summons issued by the competent authority. They contended that the Panchnama itself disclosed a cognizable offence, justifying the dismissal of the writ petition.