9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Sub-section (3) of Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code as per the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1988. 2. Validity of the sanction order issued by the Collector of Customs under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Sub-section (3) of Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code as per the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1988: The petitioner argued that the proceedings should be quashed because the evidence before charge was not completed within four years from the date of appearance of the accused, as mandated by Sub-section (3) of Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, inserted by the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1988. This provision, effective from 2nd May 1989, requires the Magistrate to discharge the accused if the prosecution fails to produce all evidence within four years unless special reasons are provided. The petitioner contended that since the charge was framed on 12.12.89, after the amendment came into force, the Magistrate should have discharged the accused. The respondent countered that all evidence before charge had been concluded on 7th February 1989, before the amendment came into force. Therefore, there was no obligation for the Magistrate to apply Sub-section (3) of Section 245. The court found that Sub-section (3) of Section 245 is a procedural statute beneficial to the accused and should apply to all pending criminal proceedings. However, the court held that the amendment is prospective in nature. Since all evidence before charge was concluded on 7th February 1989, before the amendment came into force, the Magistrate was not obligated to apply Sub-section (3) of Section 245. Consequently, the first contention raised by the petitioner was rejected. 2. Validity of the sanction order issued by the Collector of Customs under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act: The petitioner argued that the sanction issued by the Collector of Customs was invalid because it was a sanction for prosecution, not for taking cognizance. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, which held that a sanction for prosecution under Section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a substitute for a sanction for taking cognizance under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent argued that the sanction given by the Collector of Customs under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act was valid for prosecuting the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner was being prosecuted for multiple offences, not just under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Even if the sanction under Section 135 was invalid, it would not quash the entire proceeding, only the charge under that section. The court examined the form and content of the sanction order and concluded that there is no specified form for a sanction under the Customs Act or the Criminal Procedure Code. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Biswa Bhusan Nayak v. State of Orissa, which held that a sanction need not be in a particular form as long as it sets out the facts constituting the offence. The court found that the sanction order in question set out the facts and was issued under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act, thus it was valid. The court disagreed with the Single Judge decision in S.N. Bhowmick v. State, which quashed a proceeding on similar grounds. The court held that the sanction order issued by the Collector of Customs was valid, and the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Conclusion: The petition was rejected, and the court ordered the lower court to proceed with the case expeditiously. The court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding both the applicability of Sub-section (3) of Section 245 and the validity of the sanction order.
|
