Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka considered a criminal petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash a complaint and entire proceedings in Crime No. 28 of 2025 registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, employed as a cleaning staff with AI SATS, was alleged to be involved in gold smuggling. On 29 June 2025, while cleaning Saudi Airlines Flight No. SV-866, he allegedly received instructions from a co-worker, Mohan, to retrieve gold bars concealed beneath Seat No. 39A. The gold, wrapped in grey adhesive tape, had allegedly been carried from Jeddah and left beneath the seat by an unknown passenger. The petitioner retrieved the gold, placed it in a garbage bag, and then placed the bag inside the backpack of another cabin cleaner, Anil Kumar G., without the latter's knowledge, to move it beyond the tarmac. Suspicion was raised when Hafijuddin intercepted the petitioner, who attempted to conceal the gold bars behind a vehicle. The matter was reported, and gold weighing 2 kilograms of 24 karat purity, valued at ₹1,92,50,370, was recovered. The flight operation team handed over the packet and persons involved to Customs officers. The petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, a remand application was filed, and he was later enlarged on bail. A show cause notice was issued in Crime No. 28 of 2025. The petitioner argued that no gold was recovered from his person; the recovery was from a jeep outside the airport, and the modus operandi appeared only in the arrest memo and remand application without independent corroboration. He contended that he was an innocent cabin cleaner and proceedings should be quashed. The respondent, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, submitted that the case involved a syndicate and a carefully planned modus operandi: gold carried aboard a flight, concealed under a pre-determined seat, and retrieved by cleaning staff to bypass customs. The petitioner was intercepted during an ongoing operation, leading to recovery of 2 kg of gold. The respondent argued that the show cause notice was only the commencement of proceedings, and the petitioner should answer the notice instead of seeking quashing at such an early stage; interdiction of proceedings would encourage smuggling activities. The court noted that the facts were largely matters of record and several emerged from the petition itself. It observed that the packet was wrapped in grey adhesive tape and concealed beneath a seat, and that after the episode, the flight operation team handed over the packet and persons to customs. The remand application contained a detailed narration of the modus operandi, including specific allegations of the petitioner's actions from retrieving the gold from Seat No. 39A to concealing it in a material supply vehicle. The court was in the process of considering whether the proceedings should be quashed, but the judgment text provided is incomplete and does not include a final decision or ratio decidendi.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - The High Court was considering whether to quash a complaint and entire proceedings for an offence under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 at the stage of show cause notice - Petitioner contended that no gold was recovered from his person and that the modus operandi appeared only in the arrest memo and remand application without corroboration, while the respondent argued that the show cause notice was the commencement of proceedings and that a syndicate operation required deeper investigation; the Court was required to assess whether continuance of proceedings was justified at this nascent stage (Paras 1, 3-5, 7). B) Customs Law - Smuggling of Gold - Section 135(1)(i) and Section 108 Customs Act, 1962 - Allegations involved concealment of gold bars beneath an aircraft seat and retrieval by cleaning staff to bypass customs barriers - The remand application narrated a detailed modus operandi including directions from an ex-employee and recovery of 2 kg of gold; the Court noted that these facts emerged largely from the record and the petition itself, and that the petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Act (Paras 3-5, 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 were liable to be quashed at the stage of show cause notice for lack of recovery from the person of the petitioner and absence of independent corroboration of the alleged modus operandi.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal proceedings at show cause notice stage
- scope of Section 528 BNSS
- sufficiency of evidence for Customs offence under Section 135(1)(i)
- relevance of recovery of contraband from not accused person
- modus operandi in smuggling syndicate
