9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 625 - HC - CustomsCriminal proceedings against the Examining Officer Customs House Calcutta - period of limitation - Proceedings under Section 120B read with Sections 420/511/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Held that - the criminal prosecution against the present petitioner will be barred after expiry of three months from the date of accrual of cause of action and without giving notice in writing of one month as laid down in Section 155(2) of the Customs Act 1962. The present criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner after about 14 months from the date of accrual of cause of action is thus barred under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act 1962. Since the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is barred by limitation the continuation of the said criminal proceeding against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the court. Said criminal proceeding against the petitioner quashed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings. 2. Validity of chargesheet submission. 3. Validity of sanction for prosecution. 4. Applicability of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of criminal proceedings: The petitioner sought the quashing of criminal proceedings in Special Case No.1 of 2004, arising from Crime No.RC-7/E/96-Calcutta dated August 1, 1996, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were initiated without proper adherence to legal provisions and were time-barred under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of chargesheet submission: The petitioner contended that the chargesheet was not forwarded by the Superintendent of Police as required under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the chargesheet was indeed forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, as per the legal requirement. The chargesheet was submitted by C. R. Dash, Inspector of Police, CBI, and forwarded by Amit Garg, Superintendent of Police, CBI, thus complying with Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Validity of sanction for prosecution: The petitioner argued that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was granted without considering the necessary documents and witness statements. The court examined the sanction order dated August 29, 2003, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, and found that the sanctioning authority had duly considered all allegations, witness statements, and documents collected during the investigation. The court concluded that the sanction was not granted mechanically and with due application of mind, thus dismissing the petitioner's contention. 4. Applicability of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962: The petitioner argued that the prosecution was barred under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which requires that no proceeding shall be commenced after three months from the accrual of cause of action without giving a month's previous notice. The court noted that the FIR was registered on August 1, 1996, while the cause of action arose on May 2, 1995, thus exceeding the three-month limitation period. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in "Public Prosecutor V. R. Raju" and the unreported decision of "Sunil Kumar V. Central Bureau of Investigation" by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which supported the petitioner's argument. The court concluded that the criminal proceeding initiated after 14 months was barred by limitation under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and thus, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court. Judgment: The court quashed the criminal proceedings in Special Case No.1 of 2004 against the petitioner, directing the Special Court (CBI) at Alipore to proceed with the hearing of the case concerning the other accused persons and dispose of it expeditiously. The criminal revision was allowed, and the judgment was ordered to be communicated to the lower court for necessary action.
|
