Allowed

The Deputy Commissioner v. Abdul Khadar Kunhali Palasthadka

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2021CRL.P/8681/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside an order dismissing a customs compoundable case. The court held that dismissing the complaint despite the petitioner's request to prosecute and the respondent's conduct of absconding was an abuse of process. The impugned order was quashed, the case restored to the Special Court for Economic Offences, and the pe

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.06.2015 set aside; C.C. No.79/2014 restored; petitioner directed to secure respondent's presence.

The Deputy Commissioner Vs Abdul Khadar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.8681/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8681/2015

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (LEGAL) C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 (SMT.EZHILMATHI K) … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

ABDUL KHADAR KUNHALI PALASTHADKA S/O KUNHALI PALASTHADKA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT BULLERIKATTE ROAD POONACHA GRAM PALASTHADKA, PUTTUR – 574 289 … RESPONDENT

¶13

(VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2021 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2015 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.79/2014 AND RESTORE THE C.C. NO.79/2014 AND ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.P.No.8681/2015

O R D E R

Respondent though served is unrepresented.

¶20

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the

¶21

petitioner.

¶22

On credible information of respondent smuggling huge Indian currency, the Customs Authorities on 27.05.2010 said to have conducted search in his check-in luggage at Bangalore International Airport when he was in the process of boarding Air Arabia Flight No.G9498 scheduled to take off at 00.30 hours. His check-in luggage allegedly found to contain Indian currency worth Rs.49,45,500/- and he could not explain possession of the said currency. The Customs Authorities allegedly recovered the said currency, arrested the respondent and produced him before the Special Court for Economic Offences on the same day.

¶23

The respondent was in judicial custody till

¶24

his release on bail on 14.07.2010. From 16.07.2010, the trial Court posted the matter from time to time for

¶25

Crl.P.No.8681/2015

¶26

¶27

filing final report. The final report was filed on 22.03.2014.

¶28

The petitioner submitted the final report against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(c) of Customs Act, 1962.

¶29

On receipt of the said report, the trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the respondent. The respondent was not served till 08.06.2015 even at his address given in his passport. The learned Magistrate by impugned order dated 08.06.2015 dismissed the complaint for not taking steps.

¶30

The petitioner challenges the said order in the above petition on the ground that the trial Court should have given the fair opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute the respondent. It is further contended that since the respondent had jumped the bail condition

¶31

Crl.P.No.8681/2015

¶32

¶33

by absconding himself, the trial Court could have taken stringent view and issued the non-bailable warrant.

¶34

The records indicate that on such recovery of currency notes from the respondent the Additional Commissioner of Customs conducted the proceedings in Sl.No.7/2011-12 CUS.ADJN dated 13.10.2011/ 17.10.2011, confiscated the currency notes which were being smuggled and imposed personal penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- on the respondent. After getting bail the respondent did not appear before the Court. Thereby he abused the discretion exercised in his favour. In fact the authorities could have proceeded against the respondent for cancellation of bail on such ground.

¶35

The trial Court without noticing such conduct of the respondent and circumstances dismissed the complaint for not taking steps. That amounts to abuse of the process of the Court by the respondent and failure of justice to the petitioner. Therefore the petition is allowed.

¶36

Crl.P.No.8681/2015

¶37

¶38

The impugned order dated 08.06.2015 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences in C.C.No.77/2014 dismissing the complaint is hereby set aside. C.C.No.79/2014 is restored to file. The petitioner shall take required steps to secure the presence of the respondent. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

akc

The Deputy Commissioner v. Abdul Khadar Kunhali Palasthadka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Commissioner v. Abdul Khadar Kunhali Palasthadka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Mohini Shenoy Vs the State of Karnataka

Vittaldas Kamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajashekharananda Swamiji Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Robinson Roberts Donison Vs M/S Standard Chartered Bank

Syed Imtiaz Ahmed Vs M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank