(1.) Pursuant to a chargesheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation the petitioner and two others have been arraigned before the 9th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 468/471, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code. One of the three accused could not however be apprehended and as such the case is proceeding against the petitioner and another. Before the learned Magistrate they filed separate petitions praying for their discharge on the common ground that the allegations made against them for what they were worth, made out an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) and in view of Section 6 of the Act prosecution thereunder was not maintainable without a written complaint made by an officer duly authorised by tile Central Government. According to them, the provisions of Section 6 of the Act could not be evaded by resorting to device or camouflage or by misdescribing the offence or putting them under wrong labels. By his order dated January 22, 1985, the learned Magistrate rejected the petitions and thereafter framed the following charges against them :-
(2.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner alone has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding as against him.
(3.) Before this Court also Mr. Islam, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in absence of a complaint as required under Section 6 of the Act, the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of offences, and, for that matter to frame the above quoted charges which were primarily and essentially offences under Section 5 of the Act and for which filing of a complaint by a duly authorised officer was statutorily required. Mr. Islam further submitted that the provision of Section 6 of the Act could not be circumvented by changing the garb or label of an offence which squarely fulfilled the requirements of Section 5 of the Act.