Delhi High Court
Rameshwar Prasad Mittal vs State (Cbi) on 1 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 119(2005)DLT576
Author: Manju Goel
Bench: Manju Goel
JUDGMENT Citing Reference: * Mentioned K.G. Anjaneyalu v. Chairman, Puri Municipality * Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation * Case Note: Criminal Antiques seized National importance Authorization and delegation Distinction Section 411 Indian Penal Code Section 25(B), 25(2) and 14(3) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 Antiques seized from house and shop of petitioner FIR under Section 411 IPC read with Section 25(2) and 14(3) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, registered Archaeological Survey of India informed CBI that out of 15 objects seized one not registerable None of the antiquities stolen in India Petition not having valid license On report of ASI Section 411 dropped Complaint filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police authorized by Secretary, Department of Culture, Ministry of HRD 15 prosecution witnesses examined Petitioner filed application for dismissal of complaint Application dismissed Hence, present revision petition Held, words 'national importance' to be read in connection with Ancient and Historical records For articles other than Ancient and Historical Records, condition of 'national importance' not attracted Authorization Order authorizing D not only case arising out of letters of Assistant Collector of customs but also all other pending cases Secretary not delegated his power but only issued authorization Granting authorization does not mean delegation of power No logic in submission that since Section 411 has been dropped from chargesheet other offences also has to be dropped Revision petition dismissed. Ratio Decidendi: The words 'national importance' are to be read in connection with Ancient and Historical Records only and therefore condition of 'national importance' is not attracted for antique objects other than Ancient and Historical Records. If Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Department of HRD, authorizes an officer of CBI to investigate and file complaint before the concerned Court it would not amount to delegation of his power. Manju Goel, J.
1. In the night between 25th and 26th October 1993, 12 suspected pieces of antique items of stone/terracotta were seized in a raid conducted by the CBI at the residence of the petitioner at 2772/A Pepal Mahadev, Huaz Kazi, Delhi. On the following date, 10 more similar items were seized from the shop of the petitioner known as Mittal Exports at Zama Masjid. A FIR u/s 411 IPC read with Section 25(2) and 14(3) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act was recorded on 3.11.93. The seized items were examined by the expert of ASI (Archaeological Survey of India). Vide letter dated 24.1.94 the ASI informed the CBI that 5 items seized from the house and 10 items seized from the shop were antiquities. The ASI informed the CBI that of the 15 objects declared antiquities all are registerable except the one at serial No.19. None of the antiquities were found to have been stolen in India as per the records of the ASI. On receipt of this report, Section 411 was dropped from the FIR. ASI also informed the CBI on 10th August, 1994 that M/s Mittal Exports did not have a valid license. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri R.K. Saran was authorised by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of HRD, Department of Culture for filing the complaint and the complaint was filed u/s 25(B) read with Section 25 and Section 14(3) of the Act before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate , Patiala House, New Delhi. Thereafter, the Magistrate examined 15 prosecution witnesses including Dr. C. Margabandhu CW-11. The petitioner/accused filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate for dismissing the complaint as invalid. The application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 1.7.2002. This order is impugned in the present revision petition. In a written submission filed by the petitioner, the following objections to the prosecution case have been raised:-
(i)The objects in question are not of national importance and therefore no offence u/s 40(3) and Section 25 of the Act has been made out.
(ii)The authorisation dated 16.11.93 was for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act and done on the request of the customs authorities and his opinion in the present case is without authorisation. The authorisation for filing the complaint in favor of Shri S.K. Saran is invalid because
(a) The Secretary, Department of Culture, Ministry of HRD had no power to delegate his own powers
(b) Even if the Secretary has such powers of delegation, the delegation could be made only to the officer of his own department.
(iii) Initially, the case was registered u/s 411 IPC and offence u/s 411(5) having been dropped and the petitioner being only in innocent possession of the antiquities cannot be charged and
(iv) Dr. C. Margabandhu himself did not know whether the Secretary was authorised to issue the authorisation and therefore Dr. Margabandhu could not be an expert.
2. The first question therefore to be tackled is that of the articles not being of national importance. Section 5 of the Antiquities and Art of this Act deals with the requirement of license for selling antiquities, which is as under:
"Section 5 Antiquities to be sold only under a license _ [As from the date of expiry of a period of six months from the commencement of this Act] no person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling or offering to sell any antiquity except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a license granted under Section 8.
Explanation: In this section and in sections 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 "antiquity" does not include ancient and historical records other than those declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance. "
3. A careful reading of the provision will show that the words national importance has to be read only in connection with Ancient and Historical Records. For articles other than Ancient and Historical records, the condition of national importance is not attracted. The objection to the charge on this ground must therefore fail.
4. So far as the authorisation in favor of Dr. C. Margabandhu is concerned also no infirmity is present. The aurhorisation order in the relevant case is an under:
" No. 8/7/93-Ant.
Government of India Archaeological Survey of India Janpath, New Delhi - 11/16.11.93 ORDER In exercise of the powers conferred under section 24 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, Dr. C. Margabandhu, Director (Antiquities), Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi is hereby authorised to decide whether any article/objects seized by the CBI/Police/Income Tax and lying in appeal is or is not an antiquity for the purpose of this Act, as requested by Assistant Collector, Customs, CFS, Delhi vide their letters dated 15.10.93 and 18.10.93 in his capacity as the authorised nominee of the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. He is also authorised to decide other pending cases, if any, as authorised nominee.
(Achala Moulik) Director General Archaeological Survey of India"
5. The objection of the petitioner is that authorisation was made in favor of Dr. C. Margabandhu in response to a request by the Assistant Collector Customs, CFS, Delhi vide their letter dated 15.10.93, and 18.10.93 and that the authorisation was specific to these articles. According to the petitioner by virtue of this authorisation Dr. C. Margabandhu could not have declared the articles in question in this case as antiquities. The petitioner is not willing to take note of the last sentence of this authorisation "he is also authorised to decide other pending cases, if, any, as authorised nominee."
6. I find absolutely nothing wrong in the order dated 16.11.93. There can be no doubt that Dr. C. Margabandhu by this order has been authorised to decide not only the case arising out of the letters of Assistant Collector of Customs dated 15.10.93 and 18.10.93 but also other cases which may be pending. This case was pending at that time as the requisition for certifying these objects as antiquities was dated 4.11.93. This dates reflected in the order dated 24.1.94 by which 15 of the articles have been declared as antiquities.
7. The next objection relating to the authorisation for filing of the complaint by Shri S.K. Saran, an officer of CBI also does not hold any water. The complaint itself is alleged to be invalid because of lack of authorisation in the officer filing the complaint. The complaint has been filed by Shri S.K. Saran, an officer of CBI who was duly authorised to investigate into the offence and to file a complaint. The authorisation has been given by the Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Department of Human Resource Development. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Secretary could not have issued the authorisation because he himself is a delegatee of power and could not have further delegated the power. I find no logic in this submission. The Secretary has not delegated his power. He has power to authorise or to issue sanction on behalf of the Government to institute a prosecution for an offence u/s 25(1). Granting of authorisation does not mean delegation of power. It is not being alleged that somebody other than the Secretary should have issued the order of authorisation.
8. The plea that Shri S.K. Saran could not have been directed to file the complaint is based on the plea that he was throughout involved in the investigation and therefore he should not have filed the complaint. The judgment in the case of K.G. Anjaneyalu v. Chairman, Puri Municipality and Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation 1994 SCC (L&S) 1096 do not deal with the subject at hand.
9. I find absolutely no logic in the submission that since Section 411 IPC has been dropped from the chargesheet the other offences under the Act also has to be dropped. Similarly, the last objection that the expert that Dr. C. Margabandhu himself did not know the power of the Secretary is also not of any consequence.
10. In view of the above discussion, revision petition is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.5,000/-