9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to alleged lack of proper sanction and competency of the sanctioning authority. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the sanction for prosecution, alleging non-application of mind and questioning the competency of the Additional Collector of Customs to grant sanction. The complaint detailed an incident where the accused, a former Customs Officer, was suspected of fraudulent activities at the airport resulting in the recovery of foreign and Indian currency. The petitioner's counsel argued that the sanctioning authority did not consider all relevant material, including complaints made by the accused against the complainant. Additionally, citing a Supreme Court judgment, the counsel sought to have the criminal proceedings dropped due to prolonged trial duration. The respondent's counsel countered by stating that the complaints made by the accused were not relevant material for the case, and all necessary evidence had been presented to the sanctioning authority. The delay in the proceedings was explained, with the entire case record supporting the prosecution's stance. The judgment clarified that the definition of "Collector" under the Act included the Additional Collector, settling the issue of the sanctioning authority's competency. Upon reviewing the sanction order and relevant material, the court found no lack of application of mind, as all necessary evidence regarding the currency recovery was considered before granting sanction for prosecution. The court further noted that the complaints mentioned by the petitioner were not raised during cross-examination or trial proceedings, indicating they were an afterthought. The delay in the case was attributed partially to the accused, and no grounds for dropping the proceedings were found. Ultimately, the petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings was dismissed for lacking merit.
|
