Page 128 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

38 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

their duties. During the course of hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioners has
also invited the attention of the Court to correspondence in between the Director
General of police of West Bengal, Calcutta and Commissioner of Customs (Pre-
ventive), West Bengal. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
from the correspondence made by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive).
West Bengal it is clear that the petitioners were on official duties at the relevant
point of time and on the basis of secret information they had knowledge that the
two vehicles were carrying fake currency notes. It is his contention that the pre-
sent criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by the complain-
ant with the help of the police personnel to harass the present petitioners.
Learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to relevant provisions of
Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 and has submitted that the present petition-
ers being the Customs officials and were engaged in official duties. As such they
were entitled to get protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962. Ac-
cording to his contention the officials of the Customs were performing their offi-
cial duties in good faith and as such they were entitled to get protection under
the provisions of Section 155 of the Customs Act. He has also invited the atten-
tion of the Court to the provisions of Section 167(5)(iii) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and has vigorously argued that the investigation of the instant case
was not completed within a period of 2 years from the date on which the accused
persons were arrested and no such prayer for extension was made before the
Magistrate for continuation of the investigation beyond the said period.
15. Reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners
on the provisions as contained in Section 155 and Section 106 of the Customs Act,
1962. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners has strongly submitted that the
petitioners/accused acted within their statutory authority and they were entitled
to get protection as provided under Section 155 of the Customs Act. He has fur-
ther contended that Section 106 of the Customs Act gives the authority to the of-
ficers to stop and search any vehicles. It is the specific contention of the Learned
Advocate for the petitioners that in the instant case the petitioners acted in dis-
charge of their official duties and as such the sanctioning authority has rightly
refused to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioners. In support of this conten-
tion the Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court
to Annexure-P/8 at the page 81 and submitted that the Commissioner of Cus-
toms (Preventive). West Bengal, Kolkata has declined to accord sanction to pros-
ecute the petitioners in a Court of law with the FIR lodged against them mainly
on the ground that they are entitled to get the protection under Section 155 of the
Customs Act. According to the contention of the Learned Advocate appearing
for the petitioner that the continuance of the present proceedings against the pre-
sent petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and the
criminal proceedings pending against them are liable to be quashed.
16. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rana Mukherjee ap-
pearing for the State has contended that in the instant case admittedly the ac-
cused/petitioners are public servants as they were the Customs officials at the
relevant point of time. The materials placed on record revealed that the petition-
ers were on official duty when the alleged act as complained of took place. He
has further submitted that from the documents annexed by the petitioners it

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  128