DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs. GIRISH DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order inasmuch as they raise common issues, although there are separate orders which are impugned in these petitions.

(2.) The facts involved in these three impugned orders are identical. For the sake of brevity, the facts noticed in the impugned order passed in the case of accused Girish Dhawan (in paragraph 2 thereof) are set out herein below :-

(3.) The accused relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. V.J.A. Flynn V. S.S. Chauhan and Another: 1996 JCC 424, in support of their pleas of discharge under offences alleged to have been committed by them under Section 132 and 135 (1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was their contention before the learned ACMM that when a special act and a special procedure has been provided then the Customs Act, 1962 would not operate in so far as prosecution is concerned. It is their case that prosecution in respect of the export of such articles can only take place under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. This argument was accepted by the learned ACMM on the strength of the said decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. V.J.A. Flynn (supra). Accordingly, the learned ACMM discharged the accused of all the offences under the Customs Act, 1962. No complaint had been filed for the violation of any provision of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.