Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Sunil Kumar, Rajinder Singh, Shiv Kumar Sharma, Boota Singh And Others, Ashok Kumar And Others, Raj Kumar Patial, HL Saini And Others Versus Central Bureau of Investigation And Others

2016 (2) TMI 578 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Prosecution proceedings against the customs officers - sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act Claim of duty drawback on the basis of forged Import Code (IEC) number, forged identity proof to open bank accounts and forged 213 shipping bills - Accused customs officers had dishonestly and fraudulently transferred passwords and login ID to the private persons illegally engaged by them to work in the office in order to facilitate dishonest and illegal duty drawbacks by Amandeep Singh and Par .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stice. However, in my opinion, the issue will turn on the fact that this Court has come to the conclusion that in the absence of notice the prosecution is illegal. Once that is held, it would not be in the interest of justice to subject the petitioners to a trial which will ultimately be still-born. For this purpose recourse can be taken to the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., more so since the said section has been invoked in these petitions. - Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous pet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ta, Adv.e, Mr. J.S. Gill, Adv.e, Mr. Angel Sharma, Adv.e and Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Sumeet Goel, Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Ajay Tewari, J (Oral) The above Criminal Revisions have been filed for setting aside the orders whereby applications moved under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners have been dismissed and charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 IPC and under Section 13(2) read .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r 2008-09, at Ludhiana, accused Parminder Kumar and Amandeep Singh by entering into a criminal conspiracy with accused KK Sharma and other customs officers, floated non-existent firms namely M/s SM International, M/s Aastha Trading and M/s A.S. International on the basis of forged and fictitious documents viz. forged Import Code (IEC) number, forged identity proof to open bank accounts and forged 213 shipping bills and claimed duty drawbacks to the tune of crores of rupees. Accused Parminder Kum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

misconduct as public servants. The FIR No.19 dated 10.06.2009 has been lodged. The accused namely Jagdeep Singh, who is petitioner No.3 herein was working as Inspector and other accused persons/petitioners herein were working in their respective posts as Inspectors, whereas Maninder Pal Singh-petitioner No.6 was working as Examiner, Customs and they remained posted at ICD CONCOR/KCM CFS, Ludhiana for certain period. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere is a mandatory requirement of issuance of prior notice and, that having not been done the present action has to be quashed. Section 155 of the Customs Act is as under:- "SECTION 155.Protection of action taken under the Act.- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done, or intended to be done in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or the rules or regulations. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he present case the petitioners have been charged with serious offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sanction was duly taken before proceeding against them and in these circumstances the insistence of compliance of the provision of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act can not be accepted. As per him, the actions of the petitioners were completely outside the purview of their official duties and the protection of Section 155 cannot be insisted upon by them. In this connection, learned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. I have perused this provision, which is in the following terms: "155(1)........ (2) No proceeding other than a suit shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act without giving the Central Government or such officer a month's previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof, or after the expiration .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of the occurrence which took place on October 21, 1969. Since it is a legal objection and the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this complaint, after the expiry of three months, this plea of the petitioners must succeed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed." To support their arguments, they have further relied upon the decisions of the following cases wherein the issue of previous sanction has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ged that in the cited case the issue in question arose from a similar provision under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:- "2. The question which falls for consideration in these appeals is the interpretation of section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to for brevity as the Section and the Act. The section is as follows: "No suit, p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n Penal Code and section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court found that the prosecution in both the cases was barred by the rule of limitation in section 40 of the Act. The acts complained of in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1969 occurred on 25 July, 1964 and the complaint was filed on 18 May, 1965. In Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1969 the acts complained of occurred on 20 June, 1964 and the complaint was filed on 15 January, 1965. 4. The appellant's contentions are three-fold. First, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

39; contention on the other hand is that the section applies to prosecution of the respondents for violation of the provisions of the Rules and the Act. It is further said on behalf of the respondents that they were rightly acquitted by the High Court because the prosecution were instituted subsequent to the expiry of six months from the date of the alleged offences. 10. Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that the provisions of the section did not apply to prosecution for offences comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Act. The second sub-section speaks of limitation of suits, prosecution or other legal proceeding for anything done or ordered to be done under the Act after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the act or order complained of. The two subsections operate indifferent fields. The first subsection contemplates bar of suits against the Central Government or against the officers by protecting them in respect of orders passed in good faith or acts .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act. It was also said that "anything done" would not include a malicious act or an act done in bad faith. Sub- section (2) of section 40 does not introduce the test of good faith in relation to act done. Good faith is one of the aspects in section 40(1). The present appeals do not turn on sub-section (1) of section 40. 22. The word 'Act' is defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897. The definition is as follows: "'Act' used with reference to an offence or a civil wr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsel for the respondent No.1-CBI has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.P. Unnikrishnan vs. Puttiyottil Alikutty, reported as 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 25, wherein their Lordships held that beating of a person within police custody would not fall within official duties of the police officer and hence such officer would not get the benefit of Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act which fixed a period of six months from the date of commission of an offenc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s the argument that sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained, the learned Senior Counsel as well as other learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the issue of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and issue of notice under the Customs Act are two independent protections and therefore the mere fact that sanction was obtained under the Prevention of Corruption Act would not obviate the need of notice under Section 155 of the Customs Act. Moreover in R.Raj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act is not valid. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has also raised the argument that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable at this stage. To support his argument he has relied upon the Single Bench judgments of Delhi High Court and of this Court in the matter of Dharambir Khattar and others vs. CBI, 2010(6) RCR (Criminal) 1733 and Kuldipak Ahuja vs. CBI, 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 710 respectively, where it has been held that in terms of p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version