The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash Customs proceedings against an airline cabin-cleaning employee accused of participating in an organised operation to smuggle nearly two kilograms of foreign-origin gold through Bengaluru’s Kempegowda International Airport and held that absence of recovery from accused cannot quash gold smuggling proceedings at threshold.
The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that physical recovery of contraband from every alleged participant cannot be treated as the sole test of involvement when the allegations disclose an organised chain in which different persons perform separate roles.
The Court said that the absence of recovery from the accused’s person could not, by itself, justify terminating the proceedings at their inception. It stressed that the petitioner’s culpability had not yet been determined and that he would have an opportunity to present his defence before the competent authority.
Buy Now: Customs Duty E-Magazine – August 2026
According to the Customs Department, Saudi Airlines Flight No. SV-866 arrived at Kempegowda International Airport from Jeddah on June 29, 2025. The petitioner, who was working as a cabin cleaner with AI SATS, boarded the aircraft in the course of his official duties.
Customs alleged that an unknown passenger had concealed two gold bars wrapped in grey adhesive tape beneath Seat No. 39A before disembarking. The arrangement was allegedly intended to enable the passenger to pass through the airport without carrying the contraband through the Customs barrier.
The petitioner was allegedly directed by a former cleaning employee, identified in the proceedings as Mohan H.K., to retrieve the packet from the predetermined seat. According to the Department, the petitioner knew that the packet contained gold and was promised ₹70,000 for removing it from the aircraft and delivering it to another person.
The Department claimed that the petitioner placed the packet in a garbage bag to avoid detection during security checks conducted when cleaning personnel left the aircraft. He subsequently allegedly placed it in the backpack of another staff member without informing him about its contents.
When the petitioner later collected the packet and attempted to move towards the staff exit, a vehicle driver reportedly became suspicious of his conduct. The petitioner was then alleged to have thrown the packet into the rear portion of a material-supply vehicle. A subsequent search of the vehicle resulted in the recovery of the two bars.
A government-approved valuer certified the recovered articles as two Suisse fine-gold bars of foreign origin, having 99.99 per cent purity and weighing 1,999 grams. Their Indian market value was assessed at ₹1,92,50,370.
The petitioner maintained that he was innocent and emphasised that no gold had been recovered from his person. The recovery had been made from a vehicle stationed outside the aircraft, it was contended.
The petitioner argued that the detailed modus operandi projected by the Customs Department appeared for the first time in the arrest memorandum and remand application and lacked independent corroboration. It was submitted that a cabin cleaner earning his livelihood through routine employment had been wrongly drawn into an alleged international smuggling operation.
On this basis, the petitioner sought the quashing of the complaint and the entire proceedings.
The Customs Department opposed the petition and argued that the case could not be viewed as an isolated act committed by an individual employee. It submitted that the alleged incident indicated the possible operation of a larger syndicate comprising several people entrusted with different roles.
According to Customs, the modus operandi involved an international passenger carrying gold into India, hiding it under a predetermined aircraft seat and leaving the aircraft without taking the contraband through Customs. Cleaning personnel with legitimate access to the aircraft would then retrieve the concealed gold, camouflage it among garbage or cleaning materials and move it beyond the secured area.
The Department contended that further investigation was necessary to determine the source of the gold, the identity of the passenger who carried it, the persons who communicated its location, those responsible for retrieving and transporting it and the person who was ultimately intended to receive it.
Customs also pointed out that the petitioner had approached the High Court without submitting his reply to the show-cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The notice proposed confiscation of the seized gold under various provisions of Section 111 and the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Act.
Rejecting the petitioner’s principal contention, the High Court observed that the alleged method of smuggling had to be examined in the context of an organised operation involving several links.
The Court said that where one person carries the contraband, another conceals it, a third retrieves it and others transport or receive it, insisting upon recovery from every participant would defeat the inquiry intended to uncover the operation.
“In an alleged operation of this nature, physical recovery from the person of every participant cannot become the sole litmus test of involvement,” the Court observed.
Justice Nagaprasanna clarified that the Court was not holding the petitioner guilty. Whether he was an innocent cabin cleaner unknowingly caught in the incident or a conscious participant acting for monetary consideration remained a matter for determination in accordance with law.
The Court held that the absence of personal recovery could not become “a passport to obliterate proceedings” when the material collected by Customs allegedly disclosed a larger, coordinated modus operandi.
The High Court also underscored the wider consequences of organised gold smuggling. It observed that smuggling was not merely the clandestine movement of a precious metal across geographical boundaries.
When systematic methods are devised to circumvent Customs controls, the consequences extend beyond an individual transaction, the Court said. Such activities undermine the Customs regime, facilitate the evasion of lawful duties and, when carried out through organised networks, affect the economic interests of the country.
“The ingenuity of the modus cannot become its immunity from scrutiny,” the Court remarked.
The Court said several questions required investigation, including who conceived the plan, who brought the gold from Jeddah, who concealed it under Seat No. 39A, who communicated its location, who was responsible for retrieving it and in whose hands it was ultimately intended to reach.
These questions, the Court observed, could not be buried before they were unearthed.
The High Court further noted that the proceedings were still at a nascent stage and that the petitioner was presently confronted with a show-cause notice.
“A show-cause notice calls for an answer; it does not pronounce guilt,” the Court stated.
The petitioner was free to submit his reply, place relevant documents and evidence before the adjudicating authority and demonstrate that he had no involvement in the alleged transaction. Stopping the proceedings before the authority could consider his defence would amount to terminating the statutory process at its inception, the Court held.
The Court added that a preliminary inquiry could not be given a “premature burial” merely because the person concerned asserted innocence. Innocence was a defence to be established during the proceedings and could not, standing alone, prevent the proceedings themselves.
Finding no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit. However, it left all the petitioner’s contentions open and permitted him to pursue the remedies available under law.
The Court also clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the petition and should not prejudice the competent authority while conducting or determining the Customs proceedings.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: MCA Extends CCFS-2026 Deadline to September 15, 2026
