Case Law Details
Om Prakash Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India), Dated: September 30, 2011)- Central Excise Act – Sub-section (2) of Section 9A makes provision for compounding of all offences under Chapter II. Significantly, Chapter II of the 1944 Act deals with levy and collection of duty and offences under the said Act have been specified in Section 9, which provides that whoever commits any of the offences set out in Section 9, would be punishable in the manner indicated under Subsection (1) itself. What is even more significant is that Section 20 of the 1944 Act, which has been extracted herein above, provides that the Officer in-Charge of a police station to whom any person is forwarded under Section 19, shall
(emphasis supplied)
either admit him to bail to appear before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, or on his failure to provide bail, forward him in custody to such Magistrate. The said provision clearly indicates that offences under the Central Excise Act, as set out in Section 9 of the Act, are bailable, since the Officer in-Charge of a police station has been mandated to grant bail to the person arrested and brought before him in terms of Section 19 of the Act. In view of the provisions of Sections 9 and 9A read with Section 20 of the 1944 Act, offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, besides being non-cognisable, are also bailable, though not on the logic that all non-cognisable offences are bailable, but in view of the aforesaid provisions of the 1944 Act, which indicate that offences under the said Act are bailable in nature.
Custom Act- The provisions of Section 104(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 13 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, vest Customs Officers and Excise Officers with the same powers as that of a Police Officer in charge of a Police Station, which include the power to release on bail upon arrest in respect of offences committed under the two enactments which are uniformly non-cognizable. Both Section 9A of the 1944 Act and Section 104(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, provide that notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences under both the Acts would be non-cognizable. The arguments advanced on behalf of respective parties in Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition (Crl) No.66 of 2011) and other similar cases under the Central Excise Act, 1944, are equally applicable in the case of Choith Nanikram Harchandani Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Crl) No.74 of 2010 and the other connected Writ Petitions in respect of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, on the same reasoning, the offences under the Customs Act, 1962 must also be held to be bailable and the Writ Petitions must, therefore, succeed. The same are, accordingly, allowed. Crl. M.P. No.10673 of 2011 in WP (Crl.) No.76 of 2011 is also disposed of accordingly. Consequently, as in the case of offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is held that offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, are bailable and if the person arrested offers bail, he shall be released on bail in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, if not wanted in connection with any other offence.
