9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. However, in my opinion, the issue will turn on the fact that this Court has come to the conclusion that in the absence of notice the prosecution is illegal. Once that is held, it would not be in the interest of justice to subject the petitioners to a trial which will ultimately be still-born. For this purpose recourse can be taken to the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., more so since the said section has been invoked in these petitions. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is also allowed and the FIR is quashed qua petitioner-Raj Kumar Patial. - C.R.R. No.250 of 2015 (O&M), C.R.R. No.677 of 2015 (O&M), C.R.R. No.649 of 2015 (O&M), C.R.R. No.1228 of 2015 (O&M), C.R.R. No.1556 of 2015 (O&M), C.R.M-M No.10284 of 2011 (O&M), C.R.R. No.4040 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 11-2-2016 - Ajay Tewari, J. For the Appellant : Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv.e with Mr. Kuber Bodh, Adv.e and Mr. Balram Singh, Adv.e, Mr. Raju Arora, Adv.e, Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Adv.e Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv.e, Mr. J.S. Gill, Adv.e, Mr. Angel Sharma, Adv.e and Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Sumeet Goel, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against the accused under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 201 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Undisputedly, no notice as required under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been issued by the Central Government to the accused/customs officers before launching prosecution against them. Learned Senior Counsel as well as other learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act there is a mandatory requirement of issuance of prior notice and, that having not been done the present action has to be quashed. Section 155 of the Customs Act is as under:- SECTION 155.Protection of action taken under the Act.- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done, or intended to be done in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or the rules or regulations. (2) No proceeding other than a suit shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this complaint, after the expiry of three months, this plea of the petitioners must succeed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed. To support their arguments, they have further relied upon the decisions of the following cases wherein the issue of previous sanction has been discussed in detail:-- i) D.T. Virupakshappa vs. C. Subash, passed in Criminal Appeal No.722 of 2015, decided on 27.04.2015; ii)Om Prakash and others vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 72; iii)Sankaran Moitra vs. Sadhna Das and another, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 584. He has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Public Prosecutor, Madras vs. R. Raju and another, etc., reported as (1972) 2 Supreme Court Cases 410 and urged that in the cited case the issue in question arose from a similar provision under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:- 2. The question whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rosecution only against departmental officers or Government servants. 11. The section consists of two sub-sections. The first subsection speaks of bar of suits against the Central Government or against any officer of the Government in respect of any order passed in good faith or any act in good faith done or ordered to be done under the Act. The second sub-section speaks of limitation of suits, prosecution or other legal proceeding for anything done or ordered to be done under the Act after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the act or order complained of. The two subsections operate indifferent fields. The first subsection contemplates bar of suits against the Central Government or against the officers by protecting them in respect of orders passed in good faith or acts done in good faith. It is manifest that the second subsection does not have any words of restriction or limitation of class of persons unlike sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) does not have any words of qualification as to persons. Therefore, subsection(2) is applicable to any individual or person. 20. The other contention on behalf of the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Act are two independent protections and therefore the mere fact that sanction was obtained under the Prevention of Corruption Act would not obviate the need of notice under Section 155 of the Customs Act. Moreover in R.Raju's case (supra) the offences complained of were not only under the Excise Act but also under the IPC. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court in holding the entire prosecution to be vitiated on account of the non-compliance of the provision of Section 40(2) of the Excise Act. In my opinion, this Court is bound by the decision of J.L. Batra's case (supra) and R.Raju's case (supra). Consequently, it has to be held that the prosecution in violation of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act is not valid. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has also raised the argument that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable at this stage. To support his argument he has relied upon the Single Bench judgments of Delhi High Court and of this Court in the matter of Dharambir Khattar and others vs. CBI, 2010(6) RCR (Criminal) 1733 and Kuldipak Ahuja vs. CBI, 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 710 respectively, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
