- (1.) This rule is directed against the charge framed against the petitioner and 13 co-accused in the case under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner prays for setting aside the charge framed against him and for quashing the proceeding pending against him in the court of a presidency magistrate of Calcutta.
(2.) It appears that one of the accused in the case was arrested at the Dum Dum Airport with a suit case immediately after the same had been cleared by the Customs authorities. Inside the suit case were found a large number of wrist watches alleged to have been illegally imported into India. In course of the investigation, 13 other persons including the present petitioner were arrested. The Customs Officers recorded the statements of some of the accused in the case. In due course, a charge sheet was submitted and 43 witnesses were examined. The learned magistrate thereafter framed a charge under section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code against all the fourteen accused in the Case.
(3.) It is urged by Mr. Dutta appearing in support of the rule that, so far as the evidence recorded by the learned magistrate is concerned, there is forthcoming no legal evidence against the present petitioner which might serve as the foundation for the charge that has been framed. It is not in dispute that the entire evidence available to the prosecution for the purpose of proving the case against the accused persons has already been adduced in the court of the learned presidency magistrate. If the submission of Mr. Dutta that out of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is no legal material on the strength whereof the present petitioner can be said to have been connected with the offence that is alleged is correct, there would be ample justification for quashing the charge so far as he is concerned.;