TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bag, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Mr. Abhisek Sinha For the Respondent : C. B. I. : Mr. Asraf Ali, Mr.Sankar Banerjee ORDER R. K. Bag, J. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings of Special Case No.1 of 2004 arising out of Crime No.RC-7/E/96- Calcutta dated August 1, 1996 under Section 120B read with Sections 420/511/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by filing this revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner was working as Examining Officer, Customs House, Calcutta when the Central Bureau of Investigation initiated criminal proceeding against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Calcutta registered FIR being Crime No.RC-7/E/96-Calcutta dated August 1, 1996 on the basis of reliable information which is as follows: One Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria promoted M/s Annapurna Yarn Fabrics and M/s Blumenfeld Ltd. for indulging in evasion of customs duty by making false import/export documents supported with false certification issued by the officials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as declared. The consignment already loaded in the vessel M. V. Slavnoe were detained, unloaded and re-examined by the Special Investigation Branch of Calcutta Customs on May 3, 1995. On re-examination of the containers it was detected that laminated jute rolls of cotton blanket, synthetic sarees and cloth materials of polythene were found whose valuation will be not more than ₹ 5,00,000/- in place of declared and certified articles in the containers as made-up of 100% pure Silk valued at ₹ 8,00,00,000/- which was duly certified by the Customs Officer of Calcutta and Inspector of Silk Board, Bhagalpur. The present petitioner along with the other officials of Calcutta customs were involved in giving false certificate that the cargo was containing Mulberry Raw Silk scarves duly packed in the containers procured from M/s Shaw Wallace Co., Calcutta on April 28, 1995. The officials of Calcutta Customs prepared detailed inventory of the articles found in the containers in presence of authorised clearing agent of the aforesaid exporters. These goods were packed in the containers for consignment to M/s Artwai Trading Ltd., P.O. Box. No.8595, Dubai, UAE vide contact no.80/C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocedure. He further submits that the sanctioning authority has granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act without considering the documents and statement of witnesses collected during investigation of the criminal case and thereby sanction for prosecution is bad in law. By referring to the provisions of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, Mr. Sinha argues that initiation of this criminal proceeding against the present petitioner is barred by Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. By taking analogy from Section 40(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Mr. Sinha has urged this court to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in Public Prosecutor, Madras V. R. Raju reported in (1972) 2 SCC 410 by which the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceeding for violation of the provisions of Section 40(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is in pari materia with Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Mr. Sinha has also cited unreported decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in Sunil Kumar V. Central Bureau of Investigation (CRR No.250 of 2015 with CRR No.677 of 2015 with CRR No.649 of 2015 with CRR No.1228 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esheet filed before Learned Judge, 1st Special Court (CBI) at Alipore on January 28, 2004, I find that the said chargesheet is duly forwarded by one Amit Garg, Superintendent of Police, CBI as per provision of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was working as Examining Officer of Customs, Calcutta at the time of commission of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and as such sanction is required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecution of the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the sanctioning authority did not consider the materials collected by the Investigating Agency for granting sanction of prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In Ganesh Dutt Sharma V. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 2 C.Cr.LR (Cal) 678 Learned Single Judge of this court quashed the criminal proceeding against the petitioner on the ground that no offence was made out against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned Single Judge made a scrutiny of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cials of Calcutta Customs received information that one Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria was exporting laminated jute rolls of cotton blanket and cloth materials of polythene under various shipping bills in the containers loaded in the vessel M. V. Slavnoe in place of 100% pure Mulberry Raw Silk in collusion with the officers of the customs at Calcutta and Inspector of Silk Board, Bhagalpur. However, the FIR was registered on August 1, 1996 by the Superintendent of Police of CBI. So the prosecution was initiated against the petitioner after lapse of almost 14 months from accrual of cause of action. The question which calls for determination of the court is whether the prosecution against the petitioner is barred under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is relevant to quote the provision of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is as follows: 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. (2) No pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Act is as follows: 40. Protection of action taken under the Act.- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government or a State Government for anything which is done, or intended to be done, in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or any rule made thereunder. (2) No proceeding, other than a suit, shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government or a State Government for anything done or purported to have been done in pursuance of this Act or any rule made thereunder, 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 of three months from the accrual of such cause. Mr. Sinha, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the provision of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is in pari materia with the provision of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962. In Sunil Kumar V. Central Bureau of Investigation (unreported decision in CRR 250 of 2015 decided on February 11, 2016) Learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he government by evading customs duty to the tune of ₹ 29,63,889/-. On scrutiny of the materials available in the case diary I have found that the Commissioner of Customs initiated proceeding under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 against Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria and his two firms M/s Annapurna Yarn Fabrics and M/s Blumenfeld Ltd. and their manager Shri Ashok Sharma and imposed penalty of ₹ 1,50,000/- and ₹ 2,35,000/- on Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria as proprietor of M/s Annapurna Yarn Fabrics and ₹ 9,94,000/- on Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria as Director and authorised signatory of M/s Blumenfeld Ltd. On October 16, 2003 the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Customs House, Calcutta had intimated the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Wing, Kolkata vide no.S-45-32/95/SIB Part-III dated October 16, 2003 that there was no loss of revenue to the Government of India due to fraudulent exports by Pramod Kumar Kishorepuria as the penalty was realised from him. There is specific provision in Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for imposition of penalty for an attempt to export goods improperly from India. The present petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
