9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es the respondent, one another (Jitender Nath) had also been summoned by the said order, the said other accused having since died and the proceedings against him having abated. 2. The complaint dated 30.06.1992 was presented by Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Senior Special Public Prosecutor engaged by the petitioner, he having continued to be the counsel till date and representing the petitioner in these proceedings as well. The complaint was accompanied by sanction and authorization for prosecution granted by Collector of Customs on 26.11.1992 in exercise of the power vested in him by Section 137(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. In view of the fact that the complaint was filed by a public servant in official capacity, no preliminary inquiry was he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t examination-in-chief, which would read thus:- "PW1. Sh. S.K.Verma ACO, IGI Airport, New Delhi. On S.A. In September, 1992 I was posted as Inspector Customs at Customs Collectorate, Delhi. On 26.9.92 acting on specific information I alongwith the officers of Customs preventive searched the godown located at Nilothi Mode near G.R. Public School Sri Ram Park, Nangloi in the presence of two independent witnesses and Sh.Vikaram Singh Watchman. Sh. Vikaram Singh opened the godown with the keys available with him and as a result of search ball bearing of foreign origin valued at Rs. 14,57,500/- (MV) were recovered and during the course of the search the documents, packing list having No.1094 of M/s Ameeco Marketing, Dubai, U.A.E. pasted on on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACMM on 09.11.1994, but it also bearing signatures of no one. 7. The witness (PW-1) was further examined on 30.11.2000 and 05.09.2002 and, thereafter, tendered for cross-examination, no effort having been made by the prosecutor to make up for the omissions with regard to proof as to sanction. 8. The petitioner, as the complainant, took its own time in prosecuting the complaint, it having lingered on over the years, the prosecution evidence eventually being closed by the ACMM on 23.01.2006. On Crl.M.C.770/2006 this court by order dated 22.01.2008, permitted additional witness to be adduced and for cross-examination of the witness to be facilitated. Taking note of this, the proceedings were revived by ACMM, for pre-charge evidence, by his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the question of charge. 11. By virtue of the said order of the revisional court dated 29.10.2015, the proceedings before the trial court again stood revived where the parties were directed to appear on 23.11.2015. The parties did appear before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) in terms of the above directions. But the petitioner (the complainant), at the same time, also preferred the petition at hand invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. primarily submitting that direction for fresh sanction to be obtained was uncalled for. 12. The petition has been pending now for over two years and a half in this court, the proceedings before the CMM where the criminal complaint is pending having ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called upon to appear and prove the sanction. 14. It is the duty of the prosecutor to ensure that all such evidence is properly and formally adduced. It is not a private prosecution but prosecution in the name of an entity of the State. The prosecutor had a duty of trust to discharge. He could not assume that the witness would himself offer all the necessary facts. After all, the witness was a public servant holding the rank of an inspector. He required assistance and, for his chief-examination, proper questions had to be put to him by the prosecutor. The failure to bring formal evidence in respect of sanction for prosecution, in these circumstances, is wholly and squarely that of the public prosecutor in-charge. He should have fully awake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the least, at the whims of individuals. After all, public interest involved in such prosecution also has to be taken care of. 17. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks hereof. In turn, the petitioner would have the liberty to recover the said costs from the person responsible for the above mentioned lapse. 18. Subject to proof of deposit of costs by the petitioner being shown to the satisfaction of the CMM, the liberty to examine additional witness to prove the sanction for prosecution is granted. This liberty, however, shall be availed by the petitioner of its own responsibility on one date of hearing, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
