Page 127 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] NITAI CHANDRA DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 37

sonnel. They denied the fact of taking money from the complainant. Local people
assembled there. Police personnel made search in the vehicle of the Customs of-
ficials being No. WB-02-F/6416 and recovered bag of the complainant containing
money. The Customs officials disclosed their identity as Nitai Chandra Das, of-
ficer, Shilanand Tigga, Phani Ghosh, Pradyut Kumar Goswami, Susanta Kumar
Maity and Haran Sk. Two or three persons fled away. It was specifically alleged
by the complainant that those persons being the customs officers trying to grab
his money by force. In the FIR the complainant further stated that he came to
know that the officials of the Customs regularly took money from the business
men by putting them under pressure.
10. On the basis of the said FIR lodged by the de facto complainant Suti
P.S. Case No. 585/2010, dated 18-9-2010 was initiated against the present peti-
tioners for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections
384/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation of the case culminated in the
submission of charge-sheet for commission of alleged offences under Sections
384/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. The petitioners filed one writ petition being No. 12135 (W) 2015
challenging the submission of the charge-sheet in connection with Suti Police
Station Case No. 585/2010, dated 18th September, 2010 corresponding G.R. Case
No. 204/2010 on the ground that the Commissioner of Customs had declined to
accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioners. The said writ petition was
dismissed on the ground that on 16th February, 2015 the petitioner had prayed
for discharge before the Learned Judicial Magistrate. The said prayer of the peti-
tioners was rejected by the Learned Magistrate on 16th February, 2015. The fact
of filing the said application and the order of rejection of the prayer of the peti-
tioners had not been disclosed in the writ petition. In the said order passed in
connection with the writ petition mentioned above it has been specifically stated
that the order passed in connection with the writ petition was not preclude the
petitioners to challenge the order dated 16th February, 2015 before the appropri-
ate forum in accordance with law, if so advised.
12. The copy of the order dated 16th February, 2015 passed by the
Learned Judicial Magistrate has been filed along with the present application.
13. Copy of the case diary has been produced by the Learned Addi-
tional Public Prosecutor.
14. During the course of hearing the Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated
in the instant case. While making his submission in favour of quashing of the
criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners, the Learned Senior Advo-
cate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners at the rele-
vant point of time were in official uniform and were discharging their official
duties. They were also using their official vehicle to discharge their duties. The
petitioners acted in discharge of their official duties and they were discharging
their official duties as per the official orders and the Circular dated 10th August,
2010. In support of the contention, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to pages 36 to 41 of the present
application and submitted that on the basis of specific intelligence/information
regarding smuggling of fake currency notes the petitioners were performing

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  127