Page 119 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. STATE OF GUJARAT 29

mation Report being C.R. No. II - 3418 of 2012 registered with Gandhidham “A”
Division Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 175, 176 and
186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. In the impugned F.I.R., it is inter alia alleged that the present appli-
cants though were demanded to furnish the document, record, pass permit re-
garding foreign made liquor and beer, they did not give the same and also ob-
structed the investigation. Thereby, the applicants committed an offence punish-
able under Sections 175, 176 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the applicants and
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent - State
of Gujarat.
5. While dealing with Criminal Misc. Application No. 13841 of 2012
filed by the licensee and Criminal Misc. Application No. 14654 of 2012 filed by
the officials of the Customs Department, this Court clearly noted that since the
bonded warehouse was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Customs
Department and the Central Government, without obtaining prior permission of
the Customs Department or the Central Government, the police has no authority
to seal or to carry out any search & seizure procedure. If any offence is found to
be committed, at the most, the police can request for the same to the Department
or to the Central Government. The police has no authority to carry out any
search operation which is beyond their jurisdiction.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Ankit Shah has pointed out that the officials
of the Customs Department were very much vigilant and they carried out the
search & seizure procedure and the matter was carried up to the competent au-
thority for confiscation of the goods and for taking departmental actions which
culminated into passing the order of confiscation as well as other penalties under
the provisions of the Customs Act. Learned advocate has contended that there
was no necessity of interference by the police as the Customs Department was
adequately and sufficiently looking after the affairs. Learned Advocate has sub-
mitted that in view of clear provisions of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962,
no officer of the Customs Department could be prosecuted or booked for such
offence as they were performing their official duty. Section 155 of the Act reads
as under :-
“155. Protection of action taken under the Act. - (1) No suit, prosecu-
tion or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or
any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is
done, or intended to be done in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or the
rules or regulations.
(2) No proceeding other than a suit shall be commenced against the Cen-
tral Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for
anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act without giving the
Central Government or such officer a month’s previous notice in writing of
the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof, or after the expiration of
three months from the accrual of such cause.”
7. In view of aforesaid Factual position, the police was not authorized
to file such complaint or proceedings against the present applicants who are high
ranked officials of the Customs Department. In view of clear provisions of Sec-
tion 155 of the Act also, no proceedings could be allowed against the applicants.
On that count also, the complaint deserves to be quashed.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  119