1984 PLP 1286 (MLD)

In re: R.S. Mohiddin A I R 1952 Mad. 561; Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindh Pra A I R 1954 S C 322; In re: R.G. Jacob AIR 1961 Mad. 482; Ramjanam Singh v. The State of Bihar A I R 1956 S C 643; Lakshminarayana Aiyar A I R 1918 Mad. 738 and The State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh A I R 1958 S C 500 ref. Ali Sabten Fazli for Appellant. Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 21st October, 1984. The petitioner in this petition for criminal revision is facing trial on a charge under section 156(1) (77 and 89) of the Customs Act. He has prayed that the proceedings against him be quashed.

2. The relevant facts are as follows: It is alleged by the prosecution that on 21-1-1980 the petitioner who is employed with a customs clearing agency approached Inspector Abdul Kabir of the Customs Department for the return of four already used baggage declaration forms so that they could be again used for obtaining customs clearance in respect of other goods. He offered to pay some money to the said Inspector for his assistance. Inspector Abdul Kabir reported the matter to Mr. Abdul Wadood Khan Assistant Collector. The two officers decided to lay a trap. Accordingly four already used baggage declaration forms were supplied to the petitioner. On the basis of these forms the petitioner was allowed to clear two air-conditioners and two refrigerators. As he was carrying these goods on a pick-up he was held up and a case was registered against him.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no case has been made out against him. It is argued that if Mr. Abdul Wadood and Inspector Abdul Kabir had refused to oblige him by supplying him with already used baggage declaration forms no offence could have been committed. It is also urged that it was no part of the functions of the public officer to supply an intending violator of law with the means of violating the law; thus, had Inspector Abdul Kabir rebuffed him instead of encouraging the petitioner when he allegedly asked for the supply of the already used baggage declaration forms no offence could have been committed. In support of this contention the learned counsel has relied upon a number of judgments from the Indian jurisdiction. See In re: M.S. Mohiddin A I R 1952 Mad. 561, Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindh Pra A I R 1954 S C 321, In re: R.G. Jacob A I R 1961 Mad. 482, Ramjanam Singh v. The State of Bihar A I R 1956 S C 643, Lakshminarayana Aiyar A I R 1918 Mad. 738 and The State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh A I R 1958 S C

500. In these authorities it was laid down that the aim of the public authorities should be to prevent crime from being committed and that they ought not to provide opportunities to a would be offender to perpetrate a crime which could not be committed without their assistance.

4. It is to be noticed that the trial is still at the preliminary stage and as yet no evidence whatsoever has been recorded. I would be, therefore, most reluctant to interfere in the matter unless all the facts have been brought on the record: Accordingly I decline to interfere with the trial at this stage. After all the evidence has been recorded it will be open to the petitioner either to approach the trial Court or again file a petition in this Court for appropriate relief. With these observations this petition is dismissed. S.A Petition dismissed.