The High Court · 2025

Th-e Supe_rintendent of Customs (prev), Customs Commissionerate. Hors office, GST_Bhav_an,. Basheerba jrr, Hfderaoad. Rep. bt-Spt F;btii'''' "' Prosecutor For CBl, High Court of Telingana, HyOeiraOia.'- ' --' - ,..Complainant /Respondent Petition under Sect t"? fi ,c :i 3. ,lilli,.E"lilil, : iJ: ", :J..f ffi :? H:; stated i n th e M em ora n d#:, be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioneriAcclsed no 2 in HQPOR No.29l20'lg-customs preventive, on the file of on the file of on the fire of the Principal commissioner of customs, customs commissionerate Hyderabad, at Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2 025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be .pleased to stay of all further proceedings in the proceedints Petitioner/Accused no 2 in HepoR .No.29l2019-customs preventive, on the fite of special Judge for Economic offences-cum-vlll Metropolitan sessions Judje, at Hyderabad. - This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K sATlsH CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate for the petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER r...€r, ! --t-lq+t' - ,1 THE H('NOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA Ctll:MINAL PETITION No.4567 of 2o25 ORDER: This Orirninal Petition is frled seeking 1.he Cou rt to quash th: r-rceedings against the petitioner/ accu sed No 2 in HQPOR I'ic.ll9 ol' 2019-customs preventive on the lile r''f the learned Spt',: tLl Judge for Economic Offences' I'lam pally' HyderabtLd

2. Th,: t -Lr:l facts of the case are that one Mr' Feroz [(han' an Indian p.Llisport holder, arrived in Hyderabad fr'lm i)ubai on May 2, i'.O|g, and was intercepted by Custorns ()ffic':rs at Rajiv GanrllLi International Airport on suspicion of smul:;gling' His baggrLp r: u'as scanned, revealing suspicious' m etallic objects (:o1,)eeled within the trolley bag's inner frarne Upon further :xarni-iation, ofhcers discovered twelve silver-':oated wires, later t:or-rfirmed by an offrcial valuer to be 24-':ara: gold' weighinll I I C.750 grams and valued at Rs' 34 'lt7 '751 I '

3. Drrrin s interrogation, Mr' Khan claimed th':r bag belongerl Lo Vtr. Jabri, a friend of his brother in [)ubzr.i' and 2 sxs,., Crl.P.fo.456? of2O2S that he had agreed to transport it to Hyderabad in exchange for a return ticket. He stated that he was instructed to hand over the bag to Mr. Syed Mohammed upon arrival. customs officers discreetly followed Mr. Khan to the exit and apprehended Mr. Mohammed as he came to receive the bag- Upon questioning, Mr. Mohammed admitted his role, explaining that he had coordinated the smuggling with Mr. Jabri to profit from selling the gold in India.

4. Both individuals were arrested under Section IO4 of the Customs Act, 7962, and remanded to judicial custody before being released on bail with conditions. The seized gold was conhscated, and legal proceedings were initiated. However, subsequent inquiries under the Right to Information Act confirmed that the authorities decided not to pursue prosecution, citing Board Circular No.12/2O22_C.Llstoms. Challenging the same, the present criminal petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri K. Satish Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing on beharf of the petitioner as werl as Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3 SKS'J Crl.P.No'+56? :,f 2O25 LezLrtrt',1 ,rounsel for the petitioner submitted ttLal' ers per 6. the reply r:t':L"ed through the Right to Information (RTl ) Act' the Cust lrll; rr :thorities clearly stated that prosecut on "vould not be la - rr,:hed in the case, citing Board Ci ^cular No.l2l 2)2'2-cr-tstoms. Since the confiscaterl gold was absolute[v sr,: z;ecl and no further legal or penal procet'dings remain pt r 11 trg against the petitioner' he contetldecl that continuinl. llLc case before the Court would ztmorlllt to an abuse or' l)r(r(;r)ss. He further submitted that the prese:rce of the petilicnerr was no Ionger required for any inves:igal ion or rrnd thus requested the Court to ry-ras'h the against the petitioner by allowing this cr iminal prosecul-1( r , proceedin,lsj petition

7. On 'hs other hand, the learned Standin3 C':unsel appearl'18 or behalf of the respondent sLtbm tted that' although there is a circular, the respondent authoritv l: as the power t: n.tf ()se a penalty, which has already been imp'>sed in the am,:tLr,, of Rs.3,5O,000/-' Therefore, he praye d tlLat the Court qursr -he proceedings against the petitioner: on11.to the extentoItl.]eprosecution,withoutaffectingt:-rellenaity impose,l r',' -1re respondent authority' ? 4 sKs,J Ctl.P.[o..+567 of2025

8. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the Customs Officers discovered twelve silver-coated wires, later confirmed by an official valuer to be 24-carat gold, weighing 1110.750 grams ald valued at Rs. 34,97,751 1-. As per Circular No.l2l2O22-Customs issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), the threshold for launching prosecution in baggage- related smuggiing cases is Rs.50,O0,0OO/- or more. Since the value of the seized gold is below this threshold, no prosecution can be initiated against the petitioner.

9. The relevant portion of Circular No.l2 /2O22',Customs, dated 16.08.2022, held as under: "Cases involving unauthor2ed importation in baggage, where the market value of the goods involved is Rs. 5O,OO,OOO/- (Rupees Fifty Lal<h) or more. shall be considered for prosecution."

10. In view of this guideline, the prosecution lodged by the respondent is hereby quashed. However, the penalty of Rs.3,50,OO0i - imposed by the respondent authority shall remain unaffected by this order. EF 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No '1567 ':'f 2025 1 1 . Ac<:o'cl t r141y, the proceedings against the petition' :r' to theextertt:fprosecution,areherebyquashed"'vhil'rthe penalry imp;se d shall stand as determined by the coml'etent A ut horiq'. 12 In vic'.r'thereof, this Criminai Petition is disposed cl" Miscellirneous applications, if aly pending' sha I also stand clrts e,l //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. BHiTWANI S,WAMY ASSISTANIT REGISTRAR r"v SEC TION OFFICER To,

1. The Sper;i:rl Jr-crge for Econiomic Offences at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Prinr;ipral Oommissioner of Customs, Customs Comnr ssiorrerate, Hyderabad

3. One CC 1.o Sft K SATISH CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate [t)PUt:)] 4. Two CCs k: ':hr: Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad 5. Two CD Jop i:s. SM/gh 4L HIGH COURT DATED: 1510412025 ORDER CRLP.No.4567 of 2025 kog'tx.' C o * 2 7 ,llit'i ; ru5 o,"., ,-r- r-rr! (st' l, L).\ \\ DISPOSING I]F THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1i, Lx I I I I I j i i a : I i