Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 480 - HC - CustomsCriminal Conspiracy - Proceedings against the Superintendent of Customs, EOU (petitioner) - wrongful loss to the Government of India - clearance of container No.CLHU-262095-4 containing the goods meant for export by accused No.4, without physically verifying the same before sealing the container - proper officer to accord sanction - offences punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT:- 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. The sanction given under Section 19(1)(c) for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be called as an invalid sanction in the eye of law. Whether the sanctioning authority was not the competent authority to accord sanction? - HELD THAT:- It is not the Commissioner of Customs, who has passed that order, but it was the Commissioner of Central Excise. Later, by the order dated 30-04-2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Head quarters, Bangalore, which was in pursuance of the Establishment Order dated 19-04-2002 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore -I Commissionerate, the petitioner was transferred from Customs Go-down, Bangalore to Customs Division, Bangalore. Thus, under the Establishment Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, the Additional Commissioner of Customs effected the said transfer - the Commissioner of Central Excise was, throughout, been the Controlling Authority of the present petitioner. As on the date of according sanction, undisputedly, the petitioner was working in the Department of Excise only. In spite of the same, if it is the contention of the petitioner that the sanction order is not in accordance with law, then, it is not the question of ‘no sanction’ but it is a sanction with some irregularity. The said question of alleged irregularity in the sanction would be a subject matter of adjudication, provided the same is raised by the accused No.1/petitioner at the appropriate point of time in the Special Court. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, there is no proper sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offences, is not acceptable - Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
|