Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

Whether the impugned order passed by the Special Court on the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., by the petitioner herein (accused No.1), is perverse and erroneous, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.1 in his argument, mainly canvassed only one point that, the charge sheet papers would go to show that, the petitioner was working in the Department of Customs, whereas the sanction order which is marked as Ex.P-11 has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. As admitted by PW-3, in her cross-examination, the sanction order at Ex.P-11 was under Section 136 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Customs Act") in which event, as per Section 137 of the Customs Act, cognizance of offence cannot be taken, except with the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. In the instant case, since the sanction was not given by the Commissioner of Customs, but has been given by the Commissioner of Excise, the very sanction being an invalid sanction, the cognizance taken without a valid sanction becomes invalid in the eye of law.

12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent

- CBI, in his argument submitted that, Section 137 of the Customs Act requires sanction by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs only with respect to the offences under Sections 132, 133, 134, 135 or 135-A of the Customs Act, but that condition is not applicable to the offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as such, the sanction given under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Commissioner of Excise, who is the removing authority, is a valid sanction in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioner was serving in Excise Department at the relevant point of time. Both Excise Department and Customs Department comes under the same Ministry. As on the date of sanction, it was Excise Commissioner, who had the power to remove the petitioner, but not the Commissioner of Customs.

13. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, as on the date of the alleged offences by the petitioner, he was serving in the Customs Department. The sanction order at Ex.P-11 was not issued under Section 137 of the Customs Act, therefore, the cognizance of offence could not have been taken by the Special Court.

14. Undisputedly, the petitioner was serving in the Customs Department, as on the date of the alleged offences. The sanction order which is at Ex.P-11 is issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate, C.R. Building, Queen's Road, Bangalore. Admittedly, the sanction has been accorded under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said fact is clear in the sanction order at Ex.P-11 itself. Section 137 of the Customs Act speaks about the cognizance of offences. Section 137 (1) of the Customs Act, reads as below:

In the case on hand, admittedly, the offences alleged against the present petitioner are punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, none of the offences under Sections 132, 133, 134, 135 or 135-A of the Customs Act have been alleged against the present petitioner in the instant case. Therefore, the sanction need not be given under Section 137 of the Customs Act.