Page 129 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] NITAI CHANDRA DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 39

would appear that the sanction to prosecute the petitioners was declined by the
sanctioning authority.
17. In support of his contention the Learned Counsel for the petitioners
has placed reliance on the decisions in Costao Fernandes v. State at the instance of
DSP, CBI, Bombay reported in 1996 Cri. LJ 1723 - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) and in
the decision of Nirmal Kanti Roy v. State of West Bengal with Ganesh Lal Moondra &
Ors. v. S. Dasgupta & Anr. reported in (1998) 4 SCC 590.
18. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Learned
Counsel appearing for the parties. In the instant case the FIR was lodged by one
Jahir Ahamed on 18-9-2010 at 19.35 hours with Suti Police Station and on the ba-
sis of that FIR Suti Police Station Case No. 583/10, dated 8-9-2010 was initiated
against the present petitioners. In the formal FIR it was mentioned that of the
accused were the Customs officials. The petitioners have approached for quash-
ing of the criminal proceedings started against them by the de facto complainant
Jahir Ahmed. The case diary reveals that the investigation culminated in submis-
sion of charge-sheet against the petitioner for commission of the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 384/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners
in their application for quashing of the proceedings have annexed several docu-
ments. Authencity and genuineness of those documents have not been chal-
lenged by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
From the FIR it appears that the allegations contained in the FIR are that the peti-
tioners blocked the car of the de facto complainant on the public road and two
persons forcibly entered into his car and snatched away his bag containing cash
of Rs. 2,03,800/- (Rupees Two Lakh Three Thousand Eight Hundred) by force.
From annexure-P/2 of the application filed by the petitioners it appears that at
the relevant point of time the petitioners were on duty. The petitioners were per-
forming the preventive duty at the relevant point of time on Ahiran Bridge on
the basis of the secret information regarding smuggling of fake currency notes
(as it appeared from annexure P/2). From annexure-P/8 at page 81 of the appli-
cation filed by the petitioners it also appears that Mr. Amit Kumar Roy Commis-
sioner of the Customs (Preventive). West Bengal, Kolkata wrote a letter to the
Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad, West Bengal in connection with Suti Po-
lice Station Case No. 585/10, dated 18-9-2010 and from that letter it appears that
the petitioners were the Customs officials at the relevant point of time and they
were on duty.
19. From the said document it further transpires that the petitioners
were the superintendent, Jangipur Customs Preventive Unit and accompanied
by the staff of Jangipur Customs Preventive Unit. The said letter it also reveals
that the area in question was infested with and well known for FICN smuggling
and illegal transportation of contraband goods. The materials placed on record as
well as from the submissions made by Learned Counsel appearing for the parties
it appears that the alleged incident took place while the petitioners were dis-
charging their officials duties and they were stopped the vehicle of the complain-
ant as alleged in discharge of their official duties. In this connection the relevant
provisions of Section 106 of the Customs Act, 1962 may be cited.
Section 106 of the Act runs as under :
Power to stop and search conveyances
(1) “Where the proper officer has reason to believe that any aircraft, ve-
hicle or animal in India or any vessel in India or within the Indian
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  129