TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. R.Raju & Anr. [1972 (8) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is not pari materia with sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, and therefore, the bar as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act cannot be made applicable to Section 155(2) of the Customs Act - The petitioner is not claiming the protection under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act and as per the discussions made by me hereinabove, the protection of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act is not available to the petitioner. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1282/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2016 - Pankaj Bhandari , J. Mr.Mahes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n rejecting the application under Section 155(2). 4. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the matter is at the fag end of the trial. Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is not pari materia with Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is also contended that previously the petitioner has moved application under 155(1) of the Act and the same stands rejected upto the High Court. Now the petitioner cannot take recourse to Section 155(2), which is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is also contended that the judgments cited by the petitioner are not applicable to the present case, as the judgments referred to were pronounced taking into consideration the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as amended with effect from 01.09.1973 reads as under:- 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 previo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of West Bengal (supra) placing reliance on Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju Anr. (supra) have concluded that sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 is pari materia with sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and therefore, the proceeding after the expiry of the term provided under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not valid. 13. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju Anr. (supra) was dealing with the unamended provisions, which existed prior to 1973. There has been a drastic change in the provision, as quoted above. Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (1) of Section 155 of the Customs Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, which has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju Anr. (supra) is not pari materia with sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, and therefore, the bar as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act cannot be made applicable to Section 155(2) of the Customs Act. 17. The Punjab Haryana High Court and the Calcutta High Court have based reliance on Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju Anr. (supra) without taking note of the fact that the existing sub- section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and sub-section (2) of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
