IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36427 of 2009 1. RAM CHANDRA PRASAD S/O LATE BHOLA SAH VILL-MADHEPURA,P.S-BAJPATI,DISTT- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESNTED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS,PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,PATNA 4. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELIGENCE,SUB REGIONAL UNIT ,IST FLOOR,CUSTOMS OFF ----------- 3/ 18/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 7.7.2009 of the Special Court, Economic Offences, Muzaffarpur in connection with D.R.I. Case No.6/09, Trial No.286/09 by which cognizance has been taken under Section-135 of the Customs Act for violation of Sections- 7, 11, 50 and 51 of the Customs Act read with Sections-3(2) and 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009. While acknowledging that sanction for the prosecution had been accorded under the Customs Act, the submission is that without a proper report whether the seized items were sandal wood or not there is no justification for the order of cognizance. The second submission is that the confession of the petitioner that it was sandal wood meant to be smuggled to Nepal, though admissible under Section- 107 of the Customs Act, not barred under Section-25 2 of the Evidence Act having been made before a Customs Officer, was obtained under duress. The report filed in the court of the Special Judge, Economic Offences at first flush states very clearly that there was reasonable belief that the red sandal wood was kept and stored with no other purpose than to smuggle it to Nepal. The sanction order has been passed on the basis of a preliminary enquiry, documentary and circumstantial evidence that the petitioner was engaged in smuggling of red sandal wood from India to Nepal for reasons recited at serials-1 to 4, to the satisfaction of the authority granting sanction. This Court is satisfied that the contention of the petitioner whether the wood be sandal wood or not and whether his confession was extracted under duress are basically his defence which can be examined and decided during trial. This Court on going through the allegations and the order of sanction is satisfied that prima facie there are enough materials to go to trial. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)