{"id":42365,"date":"2010-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-11-05T23:19:06","modified_gmt":"2015-11-05T17:49:06","slug":"prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Pachhapure<\/div>\n
1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 20\"*DAY or JANUARY, 2010\nBEFORE:\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. pAcHEAPUEE;\",\nCRIMINAL PETITION No.6576 gg 2009 E E\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. C.Prasad, _,m.\nS\/o. late V.Chandrashekar,\nAged about 55 years,\n\n2. Anitha Prasad,\nW\/o. C.Prasad,\nAged about 50 years,\n\nBoth_r[atENoA2\u00a7lg,iSeotorcI,5\n27\"Rcross,qEsR{Layout,\nBangalore--56\ufb02\"Oi2,\"g_\".\" m PETITIONER\/S\n\n[By M\/s.'$ree Ran\u00a7a'Assoes., Advs.]\n\n        \n\nrSuperintendentVof Customs, HPU.,\n\nffice of the Commissioner of Customs,\nQueens Road} E\nCentral Revenue Building,\n\n_ 'P.B. No 5400,\n'VkBangalore4560 001. N RESPONDENT\/S\n\nxxVEfEy_\u00a7ri. Urval N.Ramanand, CGSC.]\n\n'k'k'k\n\nThis Crl.P. is filed u\/Section 438 Cr.P.C. by\nthe Advocate for the petitioners, praying to enlarge\nthe petitioners on bail, in the event of their\narrest in Crl. Misc. No.4769\/2009 by the Addl.\n\n\n\n2\n\nSessions Judge & FTC--XV, Bangalore, for the offences\np\/u\/S. 135 of the Customs Act 1962.\n\nThis Crl.P. coming on for Orders on this day,\nthe Court made the following:\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
The petition is filed apprehending arrest for
\nthe offence punishable under Section _;asitg\u00a7wu\u00a3na.g
\nCustoms Act, 1962 {hereinafter referred to as ft%\u00e9T
\nAct” for short]. V i h<\/p>\n
2. The facts relevant for the phrpo5\u00a7*Df this’<\/p>\n
petition are as under:\n<\/p>\n
Th\u00e9_petitioners_are the Directors of M\/s. Live<\/p>\n
Ads [India}pPriuate Limited, a Company governed by<\/p>\n
“;thepprouisions*oi_khe ____ Indian Companies Act, 1956.<\/p>\n
igrt does business in export of industrial salt from<\/p>\n
ICmf.whlte\u00a3ieldi Its products are classified as<\/p>\n
.chlorides, chloride oxides and product export by the<\/p>\n
“Compan dis potassium chloride.<\/p>\n
dfln April 2009, the respondent drew sample of<\/p>\n
~duindustrial salt sought to be exported and sent them<\/p>\n
i for testing to geological and metallurgical<\/p>\n
laboratories and as per the reports it is stated<\/p>\n
5L<\/p>\n
that the product is naturally occurring in inorganic
\nchemical compound and 2 samples identi\ufb01ieg gas
\npotassium chloride of technical grade. In Me? ?bQ%}_
\nthe Joint Commissioner had directed to draw sampies.<\/p>\n
again and they were sent for test to the Central<\/p>\n
Revenue Laboratories, Chennai. Vihe petitioners are’<\/p>\n
not aware of the results.\\:i.They”.state 0that the
\npotassium chloride is classified under the heading
\n3104.20 and is restricted under_esport policy issued
\nby DGFT. According to themy the contention of the
\nrespondent ;i\u00e9h,erg\u00a7\ufb01e\u00a7u\u00a7.l\u00a7\ufb01a: that the export was
\nallowed after taking azhank\u00bbguaranty_of 20% of the
\nvalue :and- the \ufb02hanhWi\u00a7uarantee was executed on<\/p>\n
14.07.2oo9;a*<\/p>\n
hit is at this stage “” that the respondent issued<\/p>\n
0summons*under Section 108 of the Act calling upon<\/p>\n
the 1″ petitioner to hear in person on 12.08 2009 to<\/p>\n
i, ‘give ‘statement. The petitioners state that they<\/p>\n
‘complied with the summons and that the respondent is<\/p>\n
— summoning them again and again for further<\/p>\n
” statement. It is in these circumstances that the<\/p>\n
‘petitioners are apprehending arrest under Section<\/p>\n
4 Cr\u00a7.E 6$”6’Q9<\/p>\n
104 of the Act. The respondent has the authority to
\narrest.\n<\/p>\n
3. The petitioners claim that the respondent<\/p>\n
has no reason to summon the petitioners and to make<\/p>\n
an enquiry for the offence under Section 135 of ghe<\/p>\n
Act as the samples were drawn in the month of Aprilv<\/p>\n
2009 and the test report dated l3\u00abQ4,2Q5\u00a7 received
\nby the respondent does not re\u00a7\u00e9;ir\u00a7\ufb01ya\u00a7re\u00a7t.i\u00a7-\u00a3h\u00a7_
\nexport material and that\ufb02 the lsummoningwxof\ufb01 the’
\npetitioners is an abuse of the process of law.<\/p>\n
4. They state” thaty they mare__ready to co”<\/p>\n
operate} with lthel,respondent whenever they are<\/p>\n
summoned and are ready and willing to abide by any<\/p>\n
_ conditions that may be imposed for release on bail.<\/p>\n
u\ufb02VTheyr \u00a3\ufb01:th\u00e9r_ submit that they are respectable<\/p>\n
citiiens* and “are permanent residents of Bangalore<\/p>\n
H’ and kthat. they will not run away from the<\/p>\n
i’7_\u00a7urisdiction. On these grounds they have sought for<\/p>\n
” grant of anticipatory bail.\n<\/p>\n
5. The learned Central’ Government Standing
\nCounsel has opposed the petition and submits that<\/p>\n
the goods covered under consignment are miswdeclared<\/p>\n
bi<\/p>\n
6. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the
\npetitioners and also the learned Central Goyernment<\/p>\n
Standing Counsel.\n<\/p>\n
7. The point that arises for my considerationl
\nis;\n<\/p>\n
Whether the petitioner is entitled”<\/p>\n
to the anticzipatory he-i1i..””so\ufb01ght 55:2. <\/p>\n
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel
\nfor the petitioners ghht thep have apprehension of
\narrest under \ufb01eetion lg\ufb01 of the Act and summons were
\nissued bp the Qustoms authority under Section 108 of
\nthe Act’}\u00ab’–state that they have not<\/p>\n
committed lan\ufb01v_unlawrul act and that they are<\/p>\n
V*innecent persons and apprehending arrest in respect<\/p>\n
V\u20acofvnon#bailable offence. They also rely upon the<\/p>\n
aeciision’ at the Apex Court reported in 2008 AIR scw<\/p>\n
‘c7220 [onion of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal<\/p>\n
j\ufb01tcfif<\/p>\n
“9. Per contra, the learned Central Government<\/p>\n
u’*standing Counsel submits that the said decision is<\/p>\n
not applicable to the facts on hand as there was<\/p>\n
blanket Order of anticipatory bail nullifying the<\/p>\n
provisions<\/p>\n
he submits<\/p>\n
to<\/p>\n
thereafter
\nthere is no reasonable apprehension of arrest for<\/p>\n
the offence under Section 135 of the_ Act :es the’ *<\/p>\n
record<\/p>\n
7 C\u00a7i.?\n<\/p>\n
of Section 104 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
the statement<\/p>\n
of the petitioners<\/p>\n
‘j\\<\/p>\n
,1
\n(‘h’\\
\n\\ 7
\nxx}<\/p>\n
Further more,<\/p>\n
that the authorities concerned will have<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
take a decision in the matter and that<\/p>\n
enquiry is not complete. On these grounds;_he has<\/p>\n
sought for dismissal of the petition.<\/p>\n
10.<\/p>\n
Now as could be seen.from the provisions<\/p>\n
of Section 108 of the \ufb01et reads thus;<\/p>\n
“P\u00a2wer_ ntO’q summon ‘persons to give<\/p>\n
eyidence and produce documents:<\/p>\n
(1) ‘<\/p>\n
‘Any Gaiettedg Officer of customs
\nshall -ha\ufb01\u00e9 Tpower to summon any
\n.4 person’~ ….. ~whose attendance he<\/p>\n
‘,considers necessary either to give<\/p>\n
1 -.4″<.eVvidence or to produce a document<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
;Ta\ufb01hich<\/p>\n
‘connection with the<\/p>\n
_ or any other thing in any inquiry<\/p>\n
such officer is making in
\nsmuggling of<\/p>\n
any goods.\n<\/p>\n
A summons to produce documents or<\/p>\n
other things may be for the
\nproduction of certain specified
\ndocuments or things or for the<\/p>\n
8 C13,? EEVEXCQ
\nproduction of all documents or
\nthings of a certain description in
\nthe possession or under the<\/p>\n
control of the person summoned.<\/p>\n
(3) All persons so summoned shall f5e5 ”
\nbound to attend either in_person]
\nor by an authorised a\ufb01ent, as sash ‘A
\nofficer may direct;fi<andg "allud
\npersons so summoned shall be bound
\nto state the '"\u00a7ruth 'u\u00e9unlf shy H
\nsubject respectingdiwhich. they, are
\nexamined Voftlmakgudstatement and
\nproduce such 5documents sand} other<\/p>\n
things as may be requiredyi<\/p>\n
PRQVIDEbi*_that'%pthe- fexemption under
\nsection l32@QoE{ the Code of Civil
\nProcedure\u00a2V'l9O8s*\u00a7S of 1908), shall be
\n_app1icable,\ufb01 to: any requisition for<\/p>\n
""attendance under this section.<\/p>\n
"(4jrpgJ;;g. such inquiry as aforesaid
\n'  be deemed to be a judicial
\n5A.proceeding within the meaning of
\ni;section 193 and section 228 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code, 1860."\n<\/p>\n
R~.iSo; now the petitioners have been issued summons<\/p>\n
iiV,dpunder the above said provision and it is for the<\/p>\n
Gazetted Officer to record the statements of the<\/p>\n
9 \u00a5r;.E aE?\u20ac:3%
\npetitioners and the proceedings before the Gazetted
\nofficer are deemed to be a judicial proceeding
\nwithin the meaning of sections 193 and section 228
\nof the Indian Penal Code. The officer has” also<\/p>\n
authority to require production of order permitting<\/p>\n
clearance of the goods imported by the landp the .<\/p>\n
seizure of goods, documents and things_anddalso:thei<\/p>\n
confiscation under Chapter 14 of the ab6V\u00e9*S&idJ&\u00a2t;<\/p>\n
11. The petitioners are apprehending arrest for
\nthe offence under Section l3S ef the Act for evasion<\/p>\n
of duty or prohibition _ \ufb02ow as cduld be seen from<\/p>\n
the allegatipngip mede ‘in the petition, the
\npetitioners statedthat there are no reasons for the<\/p>\n
Officer to summon them as they have not committed<\/p>\n
a*any offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act<\/p>\n
V5and the samplevwhich was taken in the month of April<\/p>\n
2(3.’E29″”idoes”Vii:rI_1<at reveal any adulteration and when the<\/p>\n
'epetitioners are definite of having not committed any<\/p>\n
joffence, the Officer has issued the summons under<\/p>\n
' Section 108 of the Act for recording their<\/p>\n
"e statement. The facts alleged iJ1 the petition are<\/p>\n
not sufficient to apprehend the possibility of<\/p>\n
arrest of the petitioners as the respondent after<\/p>\n
mi<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
recording the statement has to take a decision to<\/p>\n
know as to whether there is any material against the<\/p>\n
petitioners for the offence alleged. So, the ne;\u00e9_<\/p>\n
fact that the statement of the petitioner is to be\u00bb<\/p>\n
recorded itself is not a :;roundj’tohpcause_ any<\/p>\n
apprehension in the mind_ of “the petitioners “to ,<\/p>\n
arrest them for the offence pnnishable under Section<\/p>\n
135 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
12. So far as twe decision referred to above
\nis concerned, $the_ Ans; p@onrt””has taken into
\nconsideration-she powers of the authority to arrest
\nunder Section in; of the Act and the High court had
\ncome to theconcldsion that the petitioners in the<\/p>\n
said case have no grounds to apprehend arrest by the<\/p>\n
x”anthorities\u00a2A Anyhow, the Court ultimately passed an<\/p>\n
VOrder*not to arrest the petitioners without notice<\/p>\n
of Wldh days} 3 So, taking into consideration the<\/p>\n
i, blanket.brder passed by the High Court, the Apex<\/p>\n
v. ‘dearth quashed the said Order, but so far as the<\/p>\n
.remaining portion of the Order holding that there<\/p>\n
~,\u00a7\u00a3\u00e9’ no reasonable grounds to apprehend. the arrest<\/p>\n
“for the offence, the Apex Court has not interfered.<\/p>\n
The principle laidwdown does not apply to the facts<\/p>\n
b\ufb01.\n<\/p>\n
11 C:;.P \ufb01\u00a7?\u20acf39<\/p>\n
on hand in view of the facts and circumstances that<\/p>\n
it is only a summons which was issued. by gthe<\/p>\n
respondent for recording the statement_ of’ the’ is?<\/p>\n
petitioner and that itself is not sufficientVto_hoidei<\/p>\n
reasonable apprehension of arrest,” j’<\/p>\n
13. Furthermore, VitF_is ireveaied’ from: thew<\/p>\n
material placed on ;recordJVthat_pth\u00a7ap\u00e9gmgcns were
\nissued to the petitioners on 2hd1b:2QQ9 and on other
\n3 more occasions and since then the petitioners have
\nnot put recording their
\nstatement. _I am of the a\u00a7ihi\u00a7p that in the absence
\nof reasonahigwxapa\ufb01prahension of arrest, an
\nanticipatoryp baiij.\u00a7a\ufb01\ufb01c\u00a3’ be granted. Hence, I<\/p>\n
answer the point in ne\u00e9ative and proceed to pass the<\/p>\n
” * \u00a391;\u00abr\u00a7&&\u00a21″:\ufb013=  H  —– 1″\n<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
The petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
ad?’
\n\u00a7u&%6<\/p>\n
Ksm*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010 Author: A.S.Pachhapure 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20″*DAY or JANUARY, 2010 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. pAcHEAPUEE;”, CRIMINAL PETITION No.6576 gg 2009 E E BETWEEN: 1. C.Prasad, _,m. S\/o. late V.Chandrashekar, Aged about 55 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-05T17:49:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-05T17:49:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1533,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-05T17:49:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-05T17:49:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-05T17:49:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010"},"wordCount":1533,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010","name":"Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-05T17:49:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasad-c-vs-superintendent-of-customs-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prasad C vs Superintendent Of Customs on 20 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42365","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42365"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42365\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}