Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) The brief facts are that a complaint was filed in 1962 by Mr. D.D. Bhargava, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports against the petitioner and four others. The offences alleged were under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947; as also under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.

(4) The Complaint is said to have been filed after having obtained the consent of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under Section 196A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The petitioner, by an application dated 14th November, 1968 challenged both the factum and the validity of the consent purported to have been given by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. He submitted that the consent, being a condition procedent, the trial could not proceed. The Trial Magistrate, however, rejected the petitioner's application. On a revision petition against the said order, this Court, by its order dated 7th December, 1971, directed that the respondent prove the grant of the requisite consent.

(22) Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, can it be .said that the grant ofavalidsanctionhasbeen.est^biished? It-would appear s0 to me. This is despite the fact that the. formal or 3e^ of-, sanction dated 12th December' 1962, setting out all the facts' has not been signed by the Chief Commissioner and cannot, 'therefore, l^e-relied on to establish his application of mind.

(23) However, when giving his written consent to initiation of the projceedings, the Chief Commissioner had before him in the file, the flagged draft sanction order (Exhibit f.W. 22./C) which contained the .detailed facts. constituting the offences as also a brief summary of the facts as contained iT)..ExhibifaP.W.2^/B belore he granted his written consent: This would indicate that the facts 'constituting the offences wer^ before him when he sanctioned the initiation of proceedings, , is conceded bylearned counsel, Mr. A.N. Mulla, that the draft sanction (Exhibit Public Witness . 22/C) is almost identical to the formal sanction order (Exhibit JP.W. 22/A). The material, therefore, having fceen available to the sanctioning authority When it appJicd its mind and granted the sanction, it would make (24) Mr. Mehta had made an alternative submission, that even assuming the sanction order to be invalid, it would affect only the prosecution under Section 120B) Indian Penal Code, read with Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. He contended that in terms of Section 196A, Criminal Procedure Code, no sanction is necessary for the substantive offences under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947, nor for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he submitted that the case would have to proceed with respect to these offences. He relied on certain decisions to fortify his argument. These are : Modan Lal v. The State of Punjab, , Bhanwar Singh and another v. Slate of Rajasthan, and Gurbachan Singh v. State, .