P S SADAGOPACHARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION by Sadagopachari and Raghupathi, accused 4 and 6 in C. C. 14 of 1964 on the file of the Special Judge, Madras, to revise the order of the Special judge in Crl. M. P. No. 32 of 1965 in the said case overruling their preliminary objections with regard to the competency of the Collector of Customs to file the complaint in this case and the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the same.

(2.) THE difficulty that has arisen in this case is not likely to occur in future after the enactment of the new Customs Act 52 of 1962. The Collector of Customs has preferred a complaint against the petitioners and others under S. 120b read with ss. 161, 165, 165-A I. P. C. Sec. 5 (2) read with Sec. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act II of 1947; Sec. 5 (2) of the said Act read with S. 109 I. P. C. And S. 167 clauses 75, 76 and 81 of the Customs Act read with Ss. 19 and 5 of the imports and Exports (Control) Act apart from other specific offences against the individual accused. The Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) provides for special investigation by senior police officers for offences under the said Act and specific offences such as bribery under the Indian Penal Code subject to the prosecution obtaining previous sanction. Sec. 3 of the Delhi Special Police establishment Act (Act XIV of 1946) provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify the offences or classes of offences committed in connection with matters concerning Departments of the Central government which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police establishment. Such investigation was done in this case and normally, one would expect the special police to file the charge sheet in this case. But under Sec. 187-A of the Sea customs Act (Act VIII of 1878), no Court shall take cognisance of any offence relating to smuggling of goods punishable under item 81 of the Schedule to S. 167 of the said Act expect upon complaint in writing, made by the Chief Customs officer or any other officer of Customs not lower in rank than an Assistant Collector of Customs. Thus in respect of the main acts of smuggling punishable under S 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, the Collector of Customs had to prefer the complaint and for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the special Police who investigated the case had to file charge sheet. Under s. 137 of the Customs Act (Act 52 of 1962) dealing with cognisance of offences, the collector of Customs need only give sanction for the prosecution relating to certain offences under the Customs Act. Hence, the Special Police could file charge sheet in future for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and other Acts after obtaining the sanction of the Collector in respect of offences under Customs Act requiring such sanction.

(3.) THE only question to be considered in this case as regards the first objection raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is whether the Special Judge can take cognisance of all the offences charged against the petitioners and others as private complaint of the Collector of Customs. Under S 8 (1) of the Criminal Law amendment Act a special Judge may take cognisance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial, and in trying the accused persons he shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. Thus the powers of the special Judge to take cognisance of the offences are wide and they are not confined to the taking of cognisance on police charge sheet. The cognisance of offences can be taken by the special Judge even on private complaint.