9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 480 - HC - CustomsCriminal Conspiracy - Proceedings against the Superintendent of Customs, EOU (petitioner) - wrongful loss to the Government of India - clearance of container No.CLHU-262095-4 containing the goods meant for export by accused No.4, without physically verifying the same before sealing the container - proper officer to accord sanction - offences punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT - In the case on hand, admittedly, the offences alleged against the present petitioner are punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, none of the offences under Sections 132, 133, 134, 135 or 135-A of the Customs Act have been alleged against the present petitioner in the instant case. Therefore, the sanction need not be given under Section 137 of the Customs Act. The sanction given under Section 19(1)(c) for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be called as an invalid sanction in the eye of law. Whether the sanctioning authority was not the competent authority to accord sanction? - HELD THAT - It is not the Commissioner of Customs, who has passed that order, but it was the Commissioner of Central Excise. Later, by the order dated 30-04-2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Head quarters, Bangalore, which was in pursuance of the Establishment Order dated 19-04-2002 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore -I Commissionerate, the petitioner was transferred from Customs Go-down, Bangalore to Customs Division, Bangalore. Thus, under the Establishment Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, the Additional Commissioner of Customs effected the said transfer - the Commissioner of Central Excise was, throughout, been the Controlling Authority of the present petitioner. As on the date of according sanction, undisputedly, the petitioner was working in the Department of Excise only. In spite of the same, if it is the contention of the petitioner that the sanction order is not in accordance with law, then, it is not the question of no sanction but it is a sanction with some irregularity. The said question of alleged irregularity in the sanction would be a subject matter of adjudication, provided the same is raised by the accused No.1/petitioner at the appropriate point of time in the Special Court. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, there is no proper sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offences, is not acceptable - Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 137 of the Customs Act. 2. Competency of the sanctioning authority. 3. Interchangeability of services between the Customs and Excise Departments. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Sanction Order: The petitioner challenged the validity of the sanction order on the grounds that it was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise instead of the Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner argued that as per Section 137 of the Customs Act, cognizance of the offence should be taken only with the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. The court clarified that Section 137(1) of the Customs Act applies only to offences under Sections 132, 133, 134, 135, or 135-A of the Customs Act. Since the alleged offences were under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act was not required. The sanction given under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Commissioner of Central Excise was deemed valid. 2. Competency of the Sanctioning Authority: The petitioner contended that the sanctioning authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Central Excise, was not competent to accord sanction as the petitioner was serving in the Customs Department at the time of the alleged offences. The court examined the service records and found that the petitioner, although serving in the Customs Department at the time of the offences, was appointed and transferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The court noted that both departments fall under the same Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. The Commissioner of Central Excise was the authority competent to remove the petitioner from his office, making the sanction order valid. 3. Interchangeability of Services: The petitioner argued that the Customs and Excise Departments have separate Commissionerates, and their services cannot be interchanged. The court observed that the petitioner had been transferred between the Customs and Excise Departments multiple times without challenge, indicating acceptance of the interchangeability. The court held that as on the date of the sanction order, the petitioner was serving in the Excise Department, and the Commissioner of Central Excise was the competent authority. The court also cited the Supreme Court's distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity due to non-application of mind, stating that the latter should be raised during the trial. Conclusion: The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition, upholding the validity of the sanction order and the competency of the sanctioning authority. The court directed the Special Court to expedite the trial, given the offences dated back to 2003. The Registry was instructed to transmit a copy of the order along with the Special Court's records to the Special Court immediately.
|
