RAMESHWAR PRASAD MITTAL Vs. STATECBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . In the night between 25th and 26th October 1993, 12 suspected pieces of antique items of stone/terracotta were seized in a raid conducted by the CBI at the residence of the petitioner at 2772/A Pepal Mahadev, Huaz Kazi, Delhi. On the following date, 10 more similar items were seized from the shop of the petitioner known as Mittal Exports at Zama Masjid. A FIR u/s 411 IPC read with Section 25(2) and 14(3) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act was recorded on 3.11.93. The seized items were examined by the expert of ASI (Archaeological Survey of India). Vide letter dated 24.1.94 the ASI informed the CBI that 5 items seized from the house and 10 items seized from the shop were antiquities. The ASI informed the CBI that of the 15 objects declared antiquities all are registerable except the one at serial No.19. None of the antiquities were found to have been stolen in India as per the records of the ASI. On receipt of this report, Section 411 was dropped from the FIR. ASI also informed the CBI on 10th August, 1994 that M/s Mittal Exports did not have a valid licence. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri R.K. Saran was authorised by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of HRD, Department of Culture for filing the complaint and the complaint was filed u/s 25(B) read with Section 25 and Section 14(3) of the Act before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate , Patiala House, New Delhi. Thereafter, the Magistrate examined 15 prosecution witnesses including Dr. C. Margabandhu CW-11. The petitioner/accused filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate for dismissing the complaint as invalid. The application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 1.7.2002. This order is impugned in the present revision petition. In a written submission filed by the petitioner, the following objections to the prosecution case have been raised:- (i)The objects in question are not of national importance and therefore no offence u/s 40(3) and Section 25 of the Act has been made out. (ii)The authorisation dated 16.11.93 was for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act and done on the request of the customs authorities and his opinion in the present case is without authorisation. The authorisation for filing the complaint in favour of Shri S.K. Saran is invalid because (a) The Secretary, Department of Culture, Ministry of HRD had no power to delegate his own powers (b) Even if the Secretary has such powers of delegation, the delegation could be made only to the officer of his own department. (iii) Initially, the case was registered u/s 411 IPC and offence u/s 411 (5) having been dropped and the petitioner being only in innocent possession of the antiquities cannot be charged and (iv) Dr. C. Margabandhu himself did not know whether the Secretary was authorised to issue the authorisation and therefore Dr. Margabandhu could not be an expert.

(2.) The first question therefore to be tackled is that of the articles not being of national importance. Section 5 of the Antiquities and Art of this Act deals with the requirement of licence for selling antiquities, which is as under: "Section 5 Antiquities to be sold only under a licence _ [As from the date of expiry of a period of six months from the commencement of this Act] no person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling or offering to sell any antiquity except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under Section 8. Explanation:_ In this section and in sections 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 "antiquity" does not include ancient and historical records other than those declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance. "

(3.) A careful reading of the provision will show that the words national importance has to be read only in connection with Ancient and Historical Records. For articles other than Ancient and Historical records, the condition of national importance is not attracted. The objection to the charge on this ground must therefore fail.