Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Seth International on 22 August, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
Crl RP 392/2006
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.392/2006
BETWEEN:
The Commissioner of Customs,
New Custom House,
Panambur, Mangalore-10.
Petitioner
(By Sri K.N.Mohan for Sri R. Veerendra Sharma, Adv.)
AND:
1. M/s Seth International,
Sarvodaya Mills Compound,
Tardev, Bombay-400 034.
2. Shri Madhusudan L. Seth,
Proprietor, M/s Seth International,
Sarvodaya Mills Compound,
Tardev, Bombay-400 034.
3. Shri Krishnananda Shetty,
Pereie Mansion, Flat No.1,
Lady Avenue road, Lalbagh,
Mangalore-575 002.
4. Shri Venugopal,
M/s G. Narayana,
Custom House Agent,
Bangalore.
Crl RP 392/2006
2
5. Shri. Pushparaj Shetty,
B-1, Starlet Apartments,
Shiva Bagh, Kadri,
Mangalore-575 002.
6. Shri. S.D.Kini,
Upper Bendoor,
"Neela Niketan",
Mangalore-575 003.
7. Shri. K.R.Shenoy,
Kadri, Mallikatta,
Mangalore-575 003.
8. Shri. M. Giridhar,
No.1631/1, Martin Pios Road,
Lady Hill, Mangalore-575 006.
9. Shri. P.M. Nayak,
No.202, Shilpa Apartments,
Shankar Goankar Marg,
Dadar, Bombay.
Respondents
(By Sri Kiran S. Javali, Adv. for R-1, 2 and 5;
Sri Chandrashekara.K. Adv. for R-7;
Sri Laxminarayana, Adv. for R-9;
Notice to R-3 and R-8 dispensed with;
R-6 abated)
This criminal revision petition is filed under
Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to
set-aside the order dated 19.08.2005 in C.C. No.
105/1997 on the file of I Addl. CJM, Mangalore.
This revision petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:
Crl RP 392/2006
3
ORDER
The petitioner is complainant in C.C.No.105/1997 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 135 of the Customs Act.
2. In all, there were nine accused. The Trial Court, after issuing process, was not able to secure accused Nos. 3 and 8. Therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued from time to time, however, without any useful result.
3. On 19.08.2005, the complainant and counsel for complainant were absent. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint for absence of complainant and counsel for complainant. The Trial Court was not in a position to secure accused Nos. 3 and 8. Therefore, case against accused Nos. 3 and 8 was separated. In the circumstances, the Trial Court should have called upon the complainant to adduce evidence. Instead, the Trial Court closed the case and cancelled bail bonds of accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. The procedure Crl RP 392/2006 4 adopted by the Trial Court is contrary to the provisions for trial of warrant cases instituted other wise than upon a police report under Criminal Procedure Code.
4. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The petition is accepted.
5. The Trial Court is directed to restore the complaint against the respondents. The Trial Court shall proceed with the case in respect of available accused. The learned counsel submits that respondent No.6 herein namely, S.D.Kini is dead. If that is so, learned counsel for accused can report the same to the Trial Court for appropriate orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm