Delhi District Court
Vijay Raghavan G vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 16 May, 2026
DLND010083262025 Page 1 of 22
Cr Rev 575/2025
Vijay Raghavan G.
Vs.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 575/2025
In the matter of :-
Vijay Raghavan G.
Proprietor M/s Professional Exim
WZ-340, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046
.....Revisionist
)represented by Ld. Counsel Sh. K.L. Mishra
and Sh. Ranjeet Singh
Versus
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
New Delhi
Through Senior Intelligence Officer
....Respondent
(represented by Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel Sh. Satish Aggarwal
along with Ms. Neha Aggarwal and Sh. Aman Tripathi, Ld. Counsels)
Criminal Revision Under Section 397/399 CrPC
R/w Section 438/440 BNSS
Date of institution : 08.10.2025
Date when judgment reserved : 19.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 16.05.2026
DLND010083262025 Page 2 of 22
Cr Rev 575/2025
Vijay Raghavan G.
Vs.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
JUDGMENT
A) THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT
1. Does the long arm of the Indian Penal Code, dressed in the language of Sections 174 and 175, reach into the dwelling-house of a special statute --- the Customs Act, 1962 --- which has already constructed within its own walls a room for punishment and a chamber for penalty? And if it cannot, must not the court, as the sentinel of individual liberty and the guardian of legislative coherence, speak that truth plainly --- and let the persecuted go free?\
2. That, in its essence, is the jurisprudential question summoned before this Court by the present revision. A Customs House Agent, a man engaged in the lawful calling of clearing imported goods on behalf of importers, finds himself dragged into the criminal dock on the allegation that he failed to appear before the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in response to summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Department, not content with the armoury of its own special statute, has chosen to wield the broadsword of the Indian Penal Code. The accused challenges this choice. The Court must now decide whether that choice was lawful.
3. However, before this Court may venture to examine the merits of that challenge, a prior and equally weighty question presents itself
--- one of jurisdiction and procedure: whether a revision petition under Sections 397 CrPC or 438 BNSS is maintainable before this DLND010083262025 Page 3 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Court against an order framing notice under Section 251 CrPC, at all? The answer to this question, as shall be seen, is no longer res integra, having been authoritatively resolved by the Apex Court. The Court is therefore constrained to decide that issue at the threshold, while also, in an abundance of caution, addressing the merits of the challenge --- lest this Court be found wrong on the preliminary question of maintainability, in which event the substantive discussion on merits may yet serve the interests of justice.
B) BRIEF FACTS NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL
1. Before the Court can essay its conclusion on law, it must sketch, with economy but without distortion, the facts that have led the matter to this stage.
2. The Revisionist, Vijay Raghavan G., is the proprietor of M/s Professional Exim, a Customs House Broker duly authorised by the Government. He was engaged by M/s VOS Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. to clear an import consignment. He performed that function, handed the goods and documents to the importer, and received his service charges. His role, as he consistently maintained, ended there.
3. The Respondent, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), thereafter began investigations into an alleged scheme of fraudulent import of electronic items through mis-declaration of value, aimed at evading customs duty. In the course of those investigations, the DRI issued summons to the revisionist on 14.10.2019 and DLND010083262025 Page 4 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 07.11.2019 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, requiring his appearance on 21.10.2019 and 15.11.2019 respectively. The revisionist asserts --- and the record indicates --- that in response to the first summons, his Authorised Representative appeared and recorded a statement on 01.11.2019, and that in response to the second, a letter dated 20.11.2019 was sent clarifying that nothing further could be offered beyond what had already been submitted.
4. Dissatisfied, the DRI filed a criminal complaint before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, alleging that the revisionist had committed offences punishable under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code. The Ld. CMM, vide order dated 15.02.2020, took cognizance and directed the issuance of summons. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and protracted procedural delays, the accused appeared for the first time before the Trial Court on 19.03.2024. The matter was thereafter adjourned on 01.10.2024 on account of the Presiding Officer being on leave, and was next listed on 27.05.2025.
5. On 27.05.2025, the Ld. ACJM-01, Patiala House Courts, Sh. Pranav Joshi, after hearing submissions, framed a notice under Section 251 CrPC for offences under Sections 174/175 of the IPC. The revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The Revisionist had earlier filed a revision being Cr. Rev. No. 482/2025, which was disposed of as withdrawn on 12.09.2025 on DLND010083262025 Page 5 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence account of a technical defect. After rectification, the present revision has been filed.
C) THE IMPUGNED ORDER
1. The order dated 27.05.2025 passed by Ld. ACJM-01, PHC, New Delhi, which is the subject of the present revision, reads verbatim as under:
"Ct. Case No. 5183/2020DRI Vs. Vijay Raghavan G. 27.05.2025 Present: Ms. Pooja Bhaskar, Ld. SPP for the department through VC.
Accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Sh. K.L. Mishra.
Submissions heard. Perused the file.
On the basis of prima facie materials, notice for offence u/s 174/175 IPC is made out against the accused. Notice is accordingly framed to which accused pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
Let PW complainant be summoned upon steps being taken by the department.
Put up for evidence on 06.10.2025."
(emphasis supplied)
2. This is the order under challenge. It is terse. It is conclusory. It sets the machinery of criminal trial into motion against a man whose guilt
--- if any --- may lie only within the regulatory scheme of the special statute under which he was summoned, and not in the general provisions of the IPC.
DLND010083262025 Page 6 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence D) CONDONATION OF DELAY
1. Before the Court proceeds to the substantive questions, the issue of limitation calls for attention. The present revision challenges the order dated 27.05.2025. An earlier revision had been withdrawn on 12.09.2025. The present revision was filed on 04.10.2025, after which the case number was assigned and the proceedings regularised.
2. It was noted in the order dated 19.03.2026 that the application for condonation of delay was considered at length, and that the arguments of the Ld. SPP for the Respondent on the question of maintainability and on merits were also duly recorded. This Court had also noted the two issues requiring determination. The application for condonation of delay therefore stands disposed of in terms of the said order dated 19.03.2026, to the extent that the delay was taken up, argued, and decided at that stage.
3. However, for the sake of completeness, it is noted that the delay in challenging the order dated 27.05.2025, as set out in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is satisfactorily explained by a chain of events that includes: the application for certified copies made on 26.06.2025, receipt thereof on 23.07.2025, filing of the initial revision Cr. Rev. 482/2025, its withdrawal on account of technical defects on 12.09.2025, and the re-filing of the corrected petition on 04.10.2025. These are not the meanderings of DLND010083262025 Page 7 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence a dilatory litigant. They are the stumbles of a citizen navigating the procedural labyrinth --- stumbles that the law, in its humane wisdom, has always been willing to excuse when the cause is sufficient.
4. In the celebrated words of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107, "Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated." The delay is accordingly condoned.
E) GROUNDS OF REVISION The revisionist has assailed the impugned order on the following principal grounds, as set out in the revision petition:
1. That the Customs Act, 1962 is a special enactment and a complete code unto itself, containing within Section 117 a specific penal provision for non-compliance with its provisions, including the failure to comply with summons under Section 108;
2. That in view of the special nature of the Customs Act and the explicit saving provision under Sections 4 and 5 of the CrPC, the general provisions of Sections 174 and 175 of the IPC have no application;
3. That the revisionist had in fact responded to the summons, through his Authorised Representative and by letter, and the complaint misrepresents his conduct;DLND010083262025 Page 8 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025
Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
4. That there was no intentional disobedience, and the acts complained of cannot sustain a prosecution under Sections 174/175 IPC even under the terms of those sections;
5. That the complaint being not maintainable, all proceedings arising therefrom, including the framing of notice under Section 251 CrPC, are liable to be set aside.
F) FIRST ISSUE: MAINTAINABILITY OF THE REVISION PETITION
1. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the DRI raised the preliminary objection that a revision against an order framing notice under Section 251 CrPC is not maintainable before the Sessions Court, and that the appropriate remedy, if any, was to approach the Hon'ble High Court under Section 482 CrPC. This objection was recorded in the order dated 19.03.2026 and is now taken up for decision.
2. The Bar Under Section 397(2) CrPC/438(2) BNSS--The Interlocutory Order Conundrum: Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 & 438(2) of BNSS expressly provides that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The question, therefore, is whether an order framing notice under Section 251 CrPC is an interlocutory order, and if so, whether the revision before this Court is barred by operation of Section 397(2) CrPC/438(2) BNSS?
DLND010083262025 Page 9 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
3. The Authoritative Pronouncement of the Apex Court in Amit Sibal v. Arvind Kejriwal: This question is no longer res integra. It stands conclusively answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Amit Sibal v. Arvind Kejriwal, (2018) 12 SCC 165. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized of the question whether, in a summons trial case, the accused could be permitted to raise contentions at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 CrPC, and whether the order framing notice or arising out of Section 251 proceedings was amenable to revision before the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which had permitted such exercise of jurisdiction at the stage of Section 251 CrPC, and held that the order passed at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 CrPC is an interlocutory order and a revision petition challenging the same is not maintainable. The Court recognised that the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved accused, in such circumstances, lies before the High Court under the inherent powers conferred by Section 482 CrPC --- and not before the Sessions Court by way of revision under Sections 397/399 CrPC.
4. There is a distinction between an interlocutory order and a final order in criminal proceedings. The true test is not whether the order terminates the proceedings or disposes of the rights of the parties, but whether the order is one passed in the course of proceedings which still remain alive and are yet to reach their conclusion. An DLND010083262025 Page 10 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence order framing notice under Section 251 CrPC, being passed midway in the trial --- after cognizance and summoning, and before the recording of evidence --- is quintessentially an order passed in the course of ongoing proceedings. It does not terminate the proceedings. It does not finally adjudicate any right. It is, therefore, an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) CrPC/438(2) BNSS, and a revision against such an order is expressly barred.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a three-Judge Bench decision in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 13 SCC 324, further reinforced the position in the context of summons trial cases under Chapter XX CrPC. It was held, overruling the earlier decision in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, that a summons case is covered by Chapter XX of the Code, which does not contemplate a stage of discharge akin to Section 239 CrPC in warrant cases, and that once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 CrPC, the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed to its logical conclusion.
6. The Inevitable Conclusion on Maintainability. This Court, with due respect, is bound by the pronouncements of the Apex Court. The revision petition before this Court challenges the order dated 27.05.2025, which is an order framing notice under Section 251 CrPC. As held by the Supreme Court in Amit Sibal v. Arvind DLND010083262025 Page 11 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Kejriwal, such an order is an interlocutory order and a revision against the same is not maintainable before this Court under Sections 397 CrPC/438 BNSS. The preliminary objection raised by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent on this score is, therefore, upheld.
7. The revision petition is accordingly held to be not maintainable before this Court.
8. It is, however, clarified that this finding of non-maintainability shall not preclude the revisionist from pursuing such remedies as are available in law before the appropriate forum, if the revisionist is so advised.
G) SECOND ISSUE: MERITS --- CAN SECTIONS 174/175 IPC BE INVOKED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 108 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT?
1. Although this Court has found the revision petition to be not maintainable, it considers it appropriate, in the interest of justice and with abundant caution, to nonetheless examine the merits of the challenge. The reason is plain: if this Court is found to be in error on the question of maintainability --- whether by a superior court or by subsequent judicial pronouncement --- the substantive discussion on merits, recorded herein, may serve the interest of justice. The following observations are, therefore, recorded and not as part of the operative determination of this Court.
DLND010083262025 Page 12 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence H) THE LEGISLATIVE ARCHITECTURE
1. The Customs Act, 1962 is a legislative edifice of majestic comprehensiveness. It does not merely regulate import and export duties. It creates a complete universe of its own --- with provisions for investigation (Section 105), examination of persons (Section
108), arrest (Section 104), confiscation (Chapters XIV), penalties (Chapter XV), adjudication (Chapter XVI), appeals (Chapter XV- A), and a scheme of prosecution (Chapter XVI-A). It is, in the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a complete Code.
2. Section 108 of the Customs Act confers upon a Gazetted Officer of Customs the power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary for the purposes of any inquiry. Sub-section (3) mandates that every such summons shall be deemed to be a legal process within the meaning of Section 175 IPC --- but that provision operates prospectively to compel compliance; it does not import the IPC wholesale into the domain of the Customs Act.
3. Section 117 of the Customs Act is the provision that holds the key to this case. It provides:
"Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or abets any such contravention or who fails to comply with any provision of this Act with which it was his duty to comply and for which no express penalty is elsewhere provided shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one lakh rupees."DLND010083262025 Page 13 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025
Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
4. This provision is a catch-all penal provision --- a residual repository of liability for all contraventions and failures under the Act for which no specific penalty is elsewhere expressly provided. Non- compliance with summons under Section 108, a duty cast by the Customs Act itself, falls squarely within the mischief that Section 117 is designed to address.
I) THE INTERPLAY OF SECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF THE CRPC
1. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is correct in drawing the Court's attention to Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Sections 5 and 6 of the BNSS, 2023). These provisions declare, that all offences under special laws shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and dealt with in accordance with the Code --- but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5 further preserves every special or local law and every special form of procedure prescribed by any other law.
2. Read together, these provisions establish the foundational principle that where a special statute contains within itself the machinery for investigation, inquiry, and penalty for a given act or omission, the general law --- including the IPC --- must yield. The general law does not have extra-territorial ambitions into the domain of the DLND010083262025 Page 14 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence special statute, where the special statute has already legislated for the field.
J) THE AUTHORITATIVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
1. Rakesh Kumar Goyal v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 4291 (Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided 18.05.2024): This is a landmark decision that the Ld. SPP fairly and candidly acknowledged before this Court during the arguments recorded in the order of 19.03.2026. The case involved a strikingly similar situation: a complaint filed by the DRI under Sections 174 and 175 of the IPC for non-compliance of summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, after a thorough examination of the legislative scheme, held that the Customs Act is a complete Code by itself, that Section 117 provides for penalty for non-compliance with its provisions, and that the provisions of Sections 174 and 175 IPC have no application where there is a special provision in the Act dealing with the same subject matter. The complaint and the summoning order were accordingly quashed. The court further held that the complainant/respondent would retain the liberty to proceed under Section 117 of the Customs Act.
2. Manish Kumar Jain v. State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 984/2018 (2025 (7) TMI 940) (Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Coram: DoD 14.07.2025):
This is a direct authority from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court --- the DLND010083262025 Page 15 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence superior court in this very jurisdiction --- and its importance cannot be overstated. The case involved a complaint under Section 174 IPC filed by the DRI for non-compliance of a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Hon'ble High Court examined the question: "Whether Section 174 IPC can be invoked for non-
compliance of Notice under Section 108 Customs Act?" and answered it emphatically in the negative.
3. The relevant and binding portions of this judgment deserve to be reproduced:
"From the bare perusal of these two Sections1, it is evident that where there is a Special Code, which contains all the provisions for investigations as well as penalties then, it shall prevail over the general law of the country."2 "Therefore, in case the concerned person fails to comply with summons under Section 108 Customs Act, Section 117 Customs Act takes care thereof in as much as it provides for penalty for contravention of the said provision."3 "Had there been no provision like Section 117 Customs Act providing for penalty for disobedience of any Order made under the Customs Act, then Section 174/175 could have been invoked."4 "In the present case, the Complaint has been filed on account of disobedience of one summon... issued under Section 108 Customs Act, which is disobedience of any officer under the Act and is therefore, penal under Section 117 Customs Act itself. The resort could not have been made to Section 174/175 IPC. The Complaint is therefore, liable to be quashed."5 1
4 and 5 of CrPC 2 Para 42 3 Para 44 4 Para 47 5 Para 51 DLND010083262025 Page 16 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
4. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also found strong support in the following chain of precedents, all of which reinforce the same principle:
(a) Delta Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, 2004 (73) DRJ 417 (DB) --- the Customs Act is a complete Code providing for all stages of investigation, penalties, and appeals
(b) Enforcement Directorate v. M. Samba Siva Rao & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 431 --- the special law prevails over the general law
(c) General Manager Telecom v. M. Krishnan, 2009 (5) DCR 501 ---
where a special remedy exists in the special statute, the general law has no application. This is a case related to consumer law.
(d) Saroj K. Dutta v. R.L. Thapliyal, (2010) 6 RCR (Criminal) 2573 (Delhi HC) --- Section 108/117 of the Customs Act would prevail in view of Sections 4/5 CrPC.
5. The Ld. SPP for the DRI had drawn attention to the fact that the SLP against the Manish Kumar Jain judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.07.2025, though the question of law was stated to have been left open. This position was duly recorded in the order dated 19.03.2026. However, this Court observes that "leaving the question of law open" on dismissal of an SLP at the admission stage does not dilute the authority of the High Court judgment on the point. As repeatedly clarified by the Supreme DLND010083262025 Page 17 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Court itself, the dismissal of an SLP, even with observations, does not constitute an affirmation of the High Court's reasoning on merits, but neither does a general reservation of the question of law render the High Court's binding reasoning inapplicable to proceedings before a subordinate court. The correct approach, as this Court adopts, is to follow the authoritative reasoning of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on the precise point, both of which speak with one voice.
K) APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE
1. The revisionist, Vijay Raghavan G., was issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act. His alleged default --- which he denies --- was a failure to appear in response to those summons. That alleged default is, if anything, a failure to comply with a provision of the Customs Act --- a provision falling squarely within the residual penal net of Section 117 of the Customs Act.
2. There was, in the present case, no resort to Section 117 by the Respondent. Instead, the DRI chose to file a complaint under Sections 174 and 175 of the IPC --- the general penal law --- before the criminal court. As the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held, this resort cannot be made when the special statute has already legislated for the field.
3. Moreover, the facts on record actually rebut the very foundation of the complaint. The revisionist's Authorised Representative appeared DLND010083262025 Page 18 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and tendered a statement on 01.11.2019 in response to the summons dated 14.10.2019. A letter was also sent on 20.11.2019 in response to the summons dated 07.11.2019, clarifying that no further information could be provided. There is no case of intentional and deliberate non-compliance --- the sine qua non for an offence under Section 174 IPC --- on the facts as they appear.
4. In such circumstances, to allow the criminal trial to proceed under Sections 174/175 IPC --- provisions plainly inapplicable to a non- compliance with a summons under a special statute that already provides its own penal remedy --- would be, to borrow the language of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, a blatant abuse of the process of law.
L) THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE RESTATED
1. The law can be restated in terms that admit of no ambiguity: where a special statute creates a duty, provides a mechanism for its enforcement, and simultaneously provides a penalty for its non- performance, the offender cannot be simultaneously prosecuted under a general penal law for the same default. Generalibus specialia derogant --- special provisions derogate from general ones. The Indian Parliament, when it enacted the Customs Act, 1962, built within its architecture both the duty and the sanction. It did not invite the IPC to supervise its house. Courts must respect that legislative intent.
DLND010083262025 Page 19 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
2. Prima facie, therefore, on the merits of the challenge, this Court is of the considered view that the complaint filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence under Sections 174/175 IPC for alleged non- compliance with summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not maintainable in law, and the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 framing notice under Section 251 CrPC appears to be erroneous and legally unsustainable. This observation, however, is recorded only in the event that this Court is found to be incorrect on the question of the maintainability of the revision itself.
M)CONCLUSION AND ORDER For the reasons elaborated above, this Court holds as follows:
1. The delay in filing the present revision against the order dated 27.05.2025 is condoned. Sufficient cause has been shown, the earlier revision was withdrawn on account of a technical defect, and the explanation offered is satisfactory.
2. On the first issue of maintainability of the revision petition: The present revision challenges an order framing notice under Section 251 CrPC. In light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Sibal v. Arvind Kejriwal, (2018) 12 SCC 165, and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 13 SCC 324, an order framing notice under Section 251 CrPC is an interlocutory order, and a revision petition challenging the same is not maintainable before this Court under Sections 397 DLND010083262025 Page 20 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence CrPC/438 BNSS. The preliminary objection raised by the Ld. SPP for the Respondent on this score is accordingly upheld.
3. On the second issue of merits (in the event this Court is found wrong on maintainability): The complaint filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence under Sections 174/175 IPC for alleged non- compliance with summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is, prima facie, not maintainable in law. The Customs Act, 1962 is a special enactment and a complete Code unto itself. Section 117 thereof specifically provides for penalty for any failure to comply with any provision of the Act, including failure to comply with summons under Section 108. By virtue of Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Sections 5 and 6 of the BNSS, 2023), the provisions of the special statute prevail over the general law. The resort to Sections 174/175 IPC, where the special statute has already legislated for the field, is impermissible. The impugned order dated 27.05.2025 framing notice under Section 251 CrPC in Ct. Case No. 5183/2020 appears to be legally unsustainable on merits, and would have been liable to be set aside had the revision been maintainable.
4. In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the bar under Section 397(2) CrPC/438(2) BNSS as interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the revision petition is dismissed as being not maintainable before this Court. It is, however, clarified that this dismissal is solely DLND010083262025 Page 21 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025 Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the ground of maintainability, and shall not be construed as a determination on the merits of the revisionist's challenge to the complaint.
5. It is further clarified that the observations on merits recorded hereinabove are purely obiter in nature and are recorded only so that, in the event a superior court takes a different view on the question of maintainability, the revisionist's challenge on merits does not go unaddressed at this level. These observations shall not be construed as any final adjudication on the rights of the parties.
6. The revisionist shall be at liberty to pursue such remedies as are available in law before the appropriate forum, if so advised. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the Respondent/DRI from taking such action as may be permissible under the Customs Act, 1962 --- including action under Section 117 thereof --- in accordance with law and subject to any questions of limitation.
7. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information and compliance and be also given dasti.
8. Copy of this order be also sent to the concerned Director General of Customs Department to consider taking policy decision as regards such prosecution, which may ultimately be futile and may lead to unnecessary state expenses, keeping in mind the aforesaid two judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.
DLND010083262025 Page 22 of 22 Cr Rev 575/2025Vijay Raghavan G. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
9. File be consigned to Record Room.
SAURABH Digitally signed
by SAURABH
Pronounced in open court on this PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH
16th day of May, 2026 LALER
Date: 2026.05.16
17:26:20 +0530
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts Delhi
16.05.2026