ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. AMAR NATH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In connection, with import of certain quantities of Delta Hydro Carbosone in alleged contravention of certain provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the Sea Customs Act, 1878, Amar Nath Gupta and Sat Pal Jain were tried by a Magistrate. There was one complaint by an Assistant Collector of Customs against Amar Nath Gupta and Sat Pal Jain and another complaint by another Assistant Collector of Customs against Sat Pal Jain alone. They were, however, acquitted in both the cases on May 18. 1970.

(2.) Special leave to appeal against the orders of acquittal was applied for by the concerned Assistant Collectors of Customs, on whose complaints proceedings had been instituted against the accused. In the case against Amar Nath Gupta and Sat Pal Jain special leave to appeal was granted on September 15, 1970 and in the case against Sat Pal Jain on October 19, 1970. Separate appeals in the two cases were also admitted and notices were issued to the accused. On June 1, 1972, however, the Assistant Collectors of Customs applied for withdrawing the appeals. The only reason given in support of the request for withdrawing the appeals was that the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, who is the Chief Customs Officer, has directed the complainants to withdraw the appeals,

(3.) Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referred to in the applications (Cr. M.Ps. 488 and 489, of the Assistant Collector of Customs has no application. Under the provisions of that section a Public Prosecutor may, with the consent of the court, in cases tried by jury before the return of the verdict and in other cases before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried. After the pronouncement of judgment and at the stage of appeal the provisions of section 494 cannot be made use of and moreover in the present cases it is the complainant who seeks to withdraw the appeals and not the public prosecutor.