9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 765 - HC - CustomsProsecution proceedings - Necessary sanction of the Collector of Customs for prosecution - Import of goods without valid license - import of ball bearings (restricted items) instead of spare parts of Road Rollers - cheating customs authority - goods imported were not as per attested list of the goods appended to the Import license to Project Equipment Corporation (P.E.C.) - Importation of goods beyond the attested list was made on the basis of forged and fabricated documents under the forged signature - framing of charges - HELD THAT - Question of sanction according to Mr. Roy may arise at any stage of proceedings even it may arise at the inception of the proceeding as well. There is nothing to suggest that the accused must wait till the charges are framed. According to Mr. Roy the order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from illegality and should not be allowed to remain in force. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Ram Kumar 1987 (1) TMI 503 - SUPREME COURT is of no help to the petitioners because of difference in factual matrix. The petition under consideration is devoid of merit and is dismissed, however, without cost.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and maintainability of Complaint Case No. C/888/91. 2. Authority of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to file a complaint under the Customs Act. 3. Difference between sanction for prosecution and sanction for taking cognizance. 4. Joint complaint under the Import and Export (Control) Act and Customs Act. 5. Validity of the trial court's cognizance and framing of charges. 6. Application of safeguards under Section 132 and Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Maintainability of Complaint Case No. C/888/91: The revisional application challenged the legality and maintainability of the proceeding pending before the learned 12th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Import and Export (Control) Act and Customs Act. The petitioners contended that the complaint lodged by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was not maintainable and that the trial court's cognizance and subsequent proceedings were flawed. 2. Authority of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports: The petitioners argued that the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had no authority to file a complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act. They contended that the sanction accorded by the Collector of Customs for prosecution could not be regarded as a sanction for taking cognizance by the court under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S.N. Bhowmik vs. The State, which distinguished between sanction for prosecution and sanction for taking cognizance. 3. Difference Between Sanction for Prosecution and Sanction for Taking Cognizance: The petitioners emphasized the distinction between sanction for prosecution and sanction for taking cognizance, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana. They argued that the trial court's cognizance of the case without proper sanction was invalid. The court, however, found that the sanction under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act was sufficient for the trial court to take cognizance. 4. Joint Complaint Under the Import and Export (Control) Act and Customs Act: The petitioners contended that a joint complaint alleging offenses under both the Import and Export (Control) Act and the Customs Act was not maintainable due to the different nature of offenses under these acts. They argued that the trial court's cognizance and framing of charges were erroneous and resulted in abuse of process. 5. Validity of the Trial Court's Cognizance and Framing of Charges: The petitioners challenged the trial court's decision to take cognizance and frame charges without addressing the issues raised by them at the preliminary stage. They argued that the trial court should have considered their application for discharge before proceeding with the trial. The court found that the trial court's actions were not invalid and that the issues raised by the petitioners could be addressed during the trial. 6. Application of Safeguards Under Section 132 and Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The petitioners argued that the safeguards provided under Sections 132 and 197 of the Cr.P.C. for members of the armed forces or forces charged with maintaining public order should apply to them. The court, however, found that these safeguards were not applicable to the petitioners and that the sanction under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act was sufficient for the trial court to take cognizance. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments. It held that the sanction under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act was sufficient for the trial court to take cognizance and that the trial court's actions were not invalid. The court directed the parties to act upon the server copy of the judgment and sent a copy of the judgment to the learned trial court for information and necessary action.
|
