Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Nowsath Moosa vs The Joint Director on 8 June, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.739 OF 2018
BETWEEN:-
MOHAMMED NOWSATH MOOSA
S/O MOHAMMED MOOSA
NO.20, SHRI WEST MADA STREET
KRISHNAGIRI-635 001
TAMILNADU
(PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT BANGKOK)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DAYANAND HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE JOINT DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT
NO.8 (P), 1ST STAGE, 3RD BLOCK
H.B.R. LAYOUT, OPP. BDA COMPLEX
KALYANA NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560 043 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.M.SHIVAYOGISWAMY, CGSC)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST BY THE RESPONDENTS AND HIS SUBORDINATE
OFFICERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
ISSUED BY DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE,
BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, AND BANGALORE VIDE
2
DRI.F.NO.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-19 (INT-NIL) 2017 (SHOWCAUSE
NOTICE NO.20/2017 DRI-BZU) DATED 10.11.2017.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest by the Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit, in connection with the show-cause notice dated 10.11.2017 vide DRI.F. No.DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ- 19(INT-NIL) 2017.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that a show-cause notice was issued by the respondent under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, to show cause as to why the foreign currency approximately amounting to rupees One Crore taken by the petitioner to Bangkok on 02.05.2017 could not be confiscated to the Government. 3
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in relation to the above subject, suspects were taken into custody and based on the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 to 5 therein, the petitioner is sought to be implicated in the above offence and therefore, there is imminent threat of arrest of the petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel submits that initiation of proceedings by the respondent is without authority of law. The officer below the rank of Deputy Director of DRI has no power to investigate into the alleged offence. Further, after the repeal of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, all offences under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, are civil in nature. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled either to issue show-cause notice or to enquire into the alleged offence treating the same as criminal offence. Referring to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Kumar vs. Customs[2016(334) E.L.T.498 (Del.)], learned Counsel would submit that foreign currency is not "prohibited goods" under the provisions of either Customs Act, 1962 or 4 Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Therefore, initiation of criminal action against the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the above Acts and more importantly, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is sought to be implicated in the alleged offence solely on the basis of the statement of co-accused and therefore there is likelihood of his arrest in the alleged offence. Hence, he seeks an order of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, disputes this submission and would contend that the show-cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act in a confiscation proceeding. Therefore, there cannot be any threat of arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the said show-cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act.
7. Further, learned Counsel submits that the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner that he is involved in large-scale smuggling, to unearth the 5 ramification of said offence, custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary and hence, he seeks for dismissal of petition.
8. Considered the submissions. The contentions urged by the petitioner regarding the power of the respondent to initiate criminal action against the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to note that action is initiated under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, on the specific allegation that four accused persons were involved in smuggling large amount of currency to Bangkok. Petitioner is the son-in-law of accused No.1. According to the respondent, he is the master mind behind the smuggling activities. Part of smuggled currency is already seized from the co-accused. Under such circumstances, to unearth the ramification of the offence, in my view, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Therefore having regard to the nature of the accusation made against the petitioner and the character of 6 evidence that is required to be collected in proof of these accusations, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
The petition is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.