Page 131 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] NITAI CHANDRA DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 41

formal proof, in support of the stand that the acts complained of were committed
in exercise of their jurisdiction as public servants in discharge of official duties. If
the alleged acts are done or connected in discharge of the official duty then the
public servant is entitled to get protection in view of Section 155 of the Customs
Act and a public servant can be prosecuted only with the sanction under Section
197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case at hand it was alleged that the
amount was taken away from the possession of the de facto complainant by the
accused persons by using force and that was subsequently recovered from their
possession. The copy of the seizure list as prepared by the I.O. on 18-9-2010 men-
tioned about the seized amount of Rs. 2,03,800/- (Rupees Two Lakh Three Thou-
sand Eight Hundred) from the possession of the accused persons. According to
the seizure list the entire amount was seized from all the accused persons. Inter-
estingly the seizure list does not contain the signatures of the persons from
whom the amount was seized. The column 7 of the seizure list was kept blank.
22. In the instant case from annexure-P/8 annexed to the application
filed by the petitioners it appears that the sanctioning authority declined to ac-
cord sanction for prosecution of the present petitioners. The ground to decline
sanction was that the petitioners are entitled to get protection under Section 155
of the Customs Act, 1962. From annexure P/8 it further appears that the sanc-
tioning authority applied his mind to the facts of the case and refused to accord
sanction. The question of necessity of sanction depends upon the facts and cir-
cumstance of each case. There must be a reasonable connection between the al-
leged acts and discharge of official duties. In the instant case the sanctioning au-
thority, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). West Bengal declined to ac-
cord sanction and opined that the petitioners are the Customs officers and they
are entitled to get protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act.
23. The protective umbrella provided to a public servant under Section
197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not entend to every act or omission
done by the public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only
those acts or omission which are done by a public servant in discharge of his offi-
cial duty. A Public servant cannot be prosecuted without sanction if the public
servant is alleged to have committed an offence during discharge of his official
duty.
24. From the materials placed on record it appears that the acts of the
petitioners/accused persons were alleged to have been committed in discharge
of their official duties which they were required to do as per the order issued by
Customs Authority to find out fake Indian currency Notes. Mandate engrafted in
sub- section (i) of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure debarring a
Court from taking cognizance of an offence except with a previous sanction is a
prohibition imposed by the statute from taking cognizance. In the present case at
hand the Authority refused to grant sanction for prosecution after considering
the entire facts and circumstances of the case and relevant provisions of law. In
the present case the offence alleged to have been committed by the public serv-
ants in discharge of their official duties and sanction to prosecute has been de-
clined by the Appropriate Authority.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the con-
tinuance of the Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners would be

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  131