Legal principle

Offences under the Customs Act, 1962 — including those punishable under Section 135 — are non-cognizable but bailable, and an arrested person who offers bail must be released under Section 104(3) of the Customs Act if not wanted in connection with any other offence.

Court decision

The Court allowed the writ petitions and held, applying the same reasoning to both Acts, that offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 are bailable; if the person arrested offers bail, he shall be released on bail in accordance with Section 104(3) of the Customs Act, if not wanted in connection with any other offence. The decision was in favour of the petitioners.

Facts

The matters were writ petitions (criminal) heard together by the Supreme Court, with Om Prakash as the lead case under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Choith Nanikram Harchandani's petition under the Customs Act, 1962. The extract does not identify the specific goods involved in the prosecutions. The common question arose because petitioners had been proceeded against for offences under the two Acts, which by statute (Section 9A of the 1944 Act and Section 104(4) of the Customs Act) are deemed non-cognizable notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure. Customs and Central Excise officers had exercised their statutory powers of arrest under Section 13 of the 1944 Act and Section 104(3) of the Customs Act, and the petitions challenged the consequences of the offences being non-cognizable, including bailability and the officers' power to arrest.

Key provisions

• Section 135, Customs Act, 1962 — Evasion of duty or prohibitions
• Section 104(4), Customs Act, 1962 — Power to arrest
• Section 132, Customs Act, 1962 —  False declaration, false documents,etc
• Section 20, Customs Act, 1962 — Re-importation of goods
• Section 133, Customs Act, 1962 — Obstruction of officer of customs