TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 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 pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the exports by 100% Export Oriented Unit coming under their Range. Accused No.4 - M/s. Amisha International represented by Accused No.3 - Sri.D.K. Jain, was one of the 100% Export Oriented Units coming under the EOU-IV Range. The accused No.4 - M/s. Amisha International used to import Raw Mulberry Silk Yarn from China at Chennai Sea Port, without paying customs duty. As per the EOU Scheme, this Company had to export the imported Raw Mulberry Silk Yarn by processing the same into finished goods, i.e. Powder Grade Silk yarn to meet the export obligations. The accused No.4 - M/s. Amisha International had imported five consignments of Mulberry Raw Silk Yarn from China during the period from the date 21-11-2002 to 09-01-2003 through its Custom House Agent - M/s. Master Stroke Freight Forwarders Private Limited, Chennai, at Chennai Seaport. These imports were bonded at the premises of accused No.4 and the Company has to export the same by processing into Power Grade Silk Yarn. That on the date 23-01-2003, the accused No.3 - Sri. D.K. Jain - the Chief Executive Officer of accused No.4, filed a Shipping Bill No.772/2003 along with invoice No.A1/05/02 and packing list for export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the impugned order passed by the Special Court on the application filed by the accused No.1 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is: Whether the impugned order passed by the Special Court on the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., by the petitioner herein (accused No.1), is perverse and erroneous, warranting interference at the hands of this Court? 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.1 in his argument, mainly canvassed only one point that, the charge sheet papers would go to show that, the petitioner was working in the Department of Customs, whereas the sanction order which is marked as Ex.P-11 has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. As admitted by PW-3, in her cross-examination, the sanction order at Ex.P-11 was under Section 136 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Customs Act ) in which event, as per Section 137 of the Customs Act, cognizance of offence cannot be taken, except with the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate, C.R. Building, Queen's Road, Bangalore. Admittedly, the sanction has been accorded under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said fact is clear in the sanction order at Ex.P-11 itself. Section 137 of the Customs Act speaks about the cognizance of offences. Section 137 (1) of the Customs Act, reads as below: 137. Cognizance of Offences.-(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under section 132, section 133, section 134, or Section 135 or Section 135-A, except with the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. A reading of the above Section would go to show that, it is the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs, who is the authority to accord sanction. However, the said sanction under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act is required only with respect to those offences under Section 132, Section 133, Section 134, Section 135 or Section 135-A of the Customs Act. 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) r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 29-06-2022, has produced large number of documents, which are the photocopies of their alleged originals and are said to be the part of the Service Records and few Notifications regarding the transfer and placement of the petitioner, on different dates, during his service. 18. A perusal of the same would go to show that, the petitioner joined as Inspector on the date 30-09-1974 in the Central Excise, Mangluru Divisional Office. He was transferred to Bangalore Collectorate of Central Excise on the date 21-06-1976. Later, he was transferred to the Additional Collector s Office, Mangaluru, on the date 20-03-1987. There, he was promoted as Superintendent on the date 28-06-1991. He was made over from Customs Division, Mangaluru. Then he was transferred to Belgaum Head Quarters on 02-04-1992. By order dated 13-05-1996, he was posted to Hubballi A Range from Belgaum A Range. Later, under Order dated 07-04-2000, he was transferred from A Range Hubballi Division to Customs, Bangalore. The said order of transfer was made under Annual General Transfers in the grade of Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, by the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning order is not passed by the competent authority, is not acceptable. 19. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that, the Department of Excise and Department of Customs have got separate Commissionerate, as such, their internal transfers from one Department to another Department is not valid, but the same is not the question involved in this petition. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had joined the services in the year 1974 in the Department of Central Excise and retired from the Department of Central Excise in the year 2011, though in between, he was transferred or made to work as Superintendent of Customs, but he did not challenge the said assignment or deputation or transfer by whatever name that may be called. It is only when the question of sanction to prosecute him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act has arisen, he cannot forward the said contention that the Customs Department has got a separate Commissionerate. Still, the fact remains that, 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 petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
