9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C. No. 592/2017 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. 2. C.C. No. 592/2017 was initiated on a complaint filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Customs, Trivandrum. The accusation against the petitioners and their co-accused are the following: 2. On 26.10.2014 at around 4.45 A.M. the superintendent of Customs, Air Intelligence unit, International Airport, Trivandrum intercepted the 1st accused who had arrived by the Flight EK-522 at the Customs exit gate on the basis of a specific intelligence that a passenger arriving by Emirates Flight EK-522 from Dubai to Trivandrum would be trying to smuggle gold into the country by concealing on his person/checked in bag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned counsel, the said officer was not empowered to exercise the powers under Section 137 of the Customs Act and therefore the sanction in the instant case is illegal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when such specific authorities are empowered to accord sanction; even by excluding superior officers like Principal Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs, the sanction accorded in this case by an officer who held only charge and not by the officer empowered by the statutory provision is illegal. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Customs on the other hand would submit that the Central Government by notification dated 07.03.2002 notified the Commissioner of Central Excise to be the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch an officer did not have the power to discharge the functions and duties of the Commissioner of Customs under Section 137 of the Customs Act. 8. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sanction accorded for prosecution in this case is illegal cannot be prima facie accepted. Therefore the decisions namely 1979 KHC 668 (SC)- S.B. Saha & Others vs. M.S.Kochar, 2001 KHC 1149 (SC) - P.K.Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim, 2015 KHC 4473 (DC)- Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka, 1990 KHC 307- E.K. Thankappan vs. Union of India, 1979 KHC 528-Ratila Banji Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1966 KHC 374- Mohammed Safi vs. State of West Bengal and 2005 KHC 1892- State of Karnataka vs. C.Nagara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
