CRL RC/2631/2025 of VIJAYAKUMAR SAFARLAL CHUGH Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Police on 30 September 2026

ORDER

The revision challenges the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.14 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025 by the learned Magistrate, dismissing the prayer of the petitioner, seeking a direction for withdrawal of the prosecution.

2. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had attempted to smuggle 978 grams of gold,

CRL RC No. 2631 of 2025

valued at Rs.26,65,050/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand and Fifty Only) and thus, the aforestated offences; The complaint was filed on 28.12.2017.

3. The petitioner had sought for direction to the respondent to withdraw the complaint based on the Circular dated 23.10.2015 and the subsequent Circular dated 16.08.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance. In the aforesaid Circulars, threshold limits linked to the value of the goods was fixed for prosecution of offenders and for withdrawal of prosecution. Clause 4.2 of the said Circular dated 23.10.2015 states that prosecution may be considered in the following criteria of cases:

4.2.1.1. Baggage and Outright smuggling cases:

(i) Cases involving unauthorized importation in baggage/cases under Transfer of Residence Rules, where he CIF value of the goods involved is Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) or more;

(ii) Outright smuggling of high value goods such as precious metal, restricted items or prohibited items notified under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 or goods notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 or foreign currency where the value of offending goods is Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) or more; Clause 11.2.1. of the said circular reads as follows:

11.2. Prosecution for withdrawal of complaint already filed for prosecution 11.2.1 In cases where the complaint has already been filed in the court, it will be up to the Court to decide whether or not to pursue prosecution in terms of section 257 and 321 of Cr.P.C. 1973. If the order for withdrawal has been given by a Court, the

CRL RC No. 2631 of 2025

prosecution can be withdrawn by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Assistant/Deputy Director after getting a formal order from the Chief Commissioner/Principal CC or DGRI/Pr.DGRI as the case may be.

4. By a subsequent circular dated 16.08.2022, the threshold limit was increased to Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs), where, there is outright smuggling of high value goods such as precious metals.

5. The above circulars are not in dispute. The learned Magistrate dismissed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the Magistrate cannot direct the respondent to withdraw the case, since Circular No.12 of 2022 had stated that withdrawal of complaint would be applicable only if the sanction order has not been issued.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the circular dated 16.08.2022 does not place any such restrictions and it is within the discretion of the Court to direct withdrawal of a complaint which is already filed and pending before the Court.

7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would fairly concede that there is no such restriction in any of the Circulars including the Circular dated 16.08.2022 and the discretion is vested with the Court to direct withdrawal of the complaint. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted a Note sent to him by the Department, confirming this position.

CRL RC No. 2631 of 2025

8. In this case, the value of the goods attempted to be smuggled by the petitioner is Rs.26,65,050/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand and Fifty Only), as stated above. Therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to get the benefit of the said Circular dated 23.10.2015. However, he would be entitled the benefit of the subsequent Circular dated 16.08.2022, as the threshold limit, as per Clause 3.1, has been increased to Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only).

9. By the Circular dated 16.08.2022, the Board Circular dated 23.10.2015 was modified only with regard to the threshold limit and all other terms of the said circular were adopted. The relevant portion of the said Circular dated 16.08.2022 reads as follows:

5. Board's Circular No.27/2015-Customs dated 23.10.2015 stands modified to the extent above. Insofar as threshold limits are concerned, all cases where sanction for prosecution is accorded after the issuance of this Circular, shall be dealt in accordance with provisions of this Circular irrespective of the date of offense; cases where prosecution has been sanctioned but no complaint has been filed before the Magistrate shall also be reviewed by the prosecution sanctioning authority in light of the provisions of this Circular.

10. Clause 11.2.1 of the Circular dated 23.10.2015 permits the Court to decide whether or not to pursue the prosecution in terms of Sections 251 and 351 Cr.P.C. The order of the learned Magistrate to the effect that there is restriction in the Circular dated 16.08.2022 as pointed above is not based on the correct interpretation of the Circular.

CRL RC No. 2631 of 2025

11. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is well within the powers to direct withdrawal. Hence, the order impugned is set aside and the learned Magistrate shall take into consideration the facts of the case and pass appropriate orders either directing withdrawal or refer otherwise as the learned Magistrate may deem fit in the facts of the case.

12. The Criminal Revision Case, accordingly, stands allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.23051 of 2025 is closed. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm) To:

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, New Customs House, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Customs Act & Other Related Cases, Alandur.

CRL RC No. 2631 of 2025

SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL RC No. 2631 of 2025 30-09-2026 (3/3)