2019 (9) TMI 1432 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - fake Indian currency notes - It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the allegations contained in the said FIR are baseless/false and it was purposely done - HELD THAT - The petitioners were the superintendent, Jangipur Customs Preventive Unit and accompanied by the staff of Jangipur Customs Preventive Unit. The said letter it also reveals that the area in question was infested with and well known for FICN smuggling and illegal transportation of contraband goods. The materials placed on record as well as from the submissions made by Learned Counsel appearing for the parties it appears that the alleged incident took place while the petitioners were discharging their officials duties and they were stopped the vehicle of the complainant as alleged in discharge of their official duties. It is settled principle of law that the accused persons are not debarred from producing relevant documents which can be legally looked into without any formal proof, in support of the stand that the acts complained of were committed in exercise of their jurisdiction as public servants in discharge of official duties. If the alleged acts are done or connected in discharge of the official duty then the public servant is entitled to get protection in view of Section 155 of the Customs Act and a public servant can be prosecuted only with the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case at hand it was alleged that the amount was taken away from the possession of the de facto complainant by the accused persons by using force and that was subsequently recovered from their possession. In the instant case from annexure-P/8 annexed to the application filed by the petitioners it appears that the sanctioning authority declined to accord sanction for prosecution of the present petitioners. The ground to decline sanction was that the petitioners are entitled to get protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962. From annexure P/8 it further appears that the sanctioning authority applied his mind to the facts of the case and refused to accord sanction. The question of necessity of sanction depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case - The protective umbrella provided to a public servant under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not entend to every act or omission done by the public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omission which are done by a public servant in discharge of his official duty. A Public servant cannot be prosecuted without sanction if the public servant is alleged to have committed an offence during discharge of his official duty. From the materials placed on record it appears that the acts of the petitioners/accused persons were alleged to have been committed in discharge of their official duties which they were required to do as per the order issued by Customs Authority to find out fake Indian currency Notes. Mandate engrafted in sub- section (i) of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure debarring a Court from taking cognizance of an offence except with a previous sanction is a prohibition imposed by the statute from taking cognizance - In the present case at hand the Authority refused to grant sanction for prosecution after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and relevant provisions of law. In the present case the offence alleged to have been committed by the public servants in discharge of their official duties and sanction to prosecute has been declined by the Appropriate Authority. Revision application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Charge-sheet and Criminal Proceedings.
2. Allegations against Customs Officials.
3. Validity of FIR and Complaint.
4. Protection under Customs Act.
5. Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Charge-sheet and Criminal Proceedings:
The petitioners filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of Charge-sheet No. 220/13 dated 21st June 2013 and the order of taking cognizance dated 16th February 2015 in connection with G.R. Case No. 2034 of 2010 under Sections 384/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court allowed the application, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, concluding that the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

2. Allegations against Customs Officials:
The petitioners, Customs officials, were accused of stopping vehicles and forcibly taking a bag containing ?2,03,800 from the complainant. The FIR alleged that the petitioners, claiming to be on official duty, snatched the money and detained the complainant and his companions. The petitioners contended that they were performing their official duties based on specific intelligence regarding smuggling of fake currency notes.

3. Validity of FIR and Complaint:
The FIR, lodged by Jahir Ahmed, claimed that the petitioners forcibly took money from him under the guise of being Customs officials. The petitioners argued that the FIR was false and lodged to cover up the complainant's crime with the help of police personnel. The Court noted that the authenticity of the petitioners' documents, which supported their claim of performing official duties, was not challenged by the State.

4. Protection under Customs Act:
The petitioners argued that they were entitled to protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, which protects actions taken in good faith under the Act. The Court agreed, noting that the petitioners were performing their duties as per official orders and were entitled to protection. Section 106 of the Customs Act, which empowers officers to stop and search vehicles, was also cited to support their actions.

5. Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution:
The petitioners highlighted that the Commissioner of Customs had declined to accord sanction for prosecution, a requirement under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting public servants for acts done in the discharge of official duties. The Court observed that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind and refused sanction, concluding that the petitioners were entitled to protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act. The Court emphasized that without the necessary sanction, the prosecution could not proceed.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, recognizing their actions as part of their official duties and protected under the Customs Act. The lack of sanction for prosecution further supported the decision to quash the proceedings, preventing an abuse of the judicial process.