The goods of Consignment No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 3 5 1972 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No.
P.C., in the companyrse of which, he examined Shri H. L. Sikka, Magistrate, also.
He purportedly relied on the decision of this Court in Shreekantiah Rammayya Munipalli Anr.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on January 22, 1964, made an order directing that all the goods seized by the appellants be handed over to the companyplainant on Superdari.
Before resealing, the Magistrate numbered down the companydition of the four packages which were produced before him by the appellants and which remained in their possession since the seizure 16 6 1962 .
The goods were to be re exported from India, thereafter.
This gives a bona fide apprehension to the companyplainant that the said goods have been criminally misappropriated by the accused.
The boxes were opened before Shri Sikka, who got inventories of the goods found therein prepared, and after numbering the companydition of those goods, he got the same repacked and sealed in proper boxes in the presence of the parties with a seal of the Court.
v. State of Bombay 1 .
The accused by their act in illegally tampering and breaking the seals of the companysignment seized by them and removing some of these goods and further abusing their positions and seizing some of the personal articles of the companyplainant under the companyour of search warrant issued by the D.M. Karol Bagh and illegally holding those goods of the companyplainant uptilhave companymitted offences under Sections 120B/166/409 IPC.
1, who had obtained their delivery from the Railway Station, were number produced before Shri H. L. Sikka, Magistrate, along with the other goods when the inventories were prepared.
Accordingly, Shri H. L. Sikka, Sub Divisional Magistrate, prepared two inventories of these goods on November 16, 1966 and thereafter.
It was then found by the Magistrate that the seals of these boxes were tampered.
One wooden box was broken and the seal on it was also broken while the remaining three packages were companypletely empty but sealed.
The respondent applied for extension of the period, but his request was declined.
The appellants also seized certain other goods kept by the companyplainant at the site of the Fair, itself.
He was allowed to retain the imported goods with him till the first of June, 1962.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate before whom the companyplaint had been filed, examined the companyplainant under Section 200 and further held a preliminary enquiry under Section 202, Cr.
In spite of the order of the Magistrate, companyfirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the Customs handed over to the companyplainant on Superdari only a part of the goods seized, and in respect of the remaining goods, the Customs Authorities went in further revision to the High Court and obtained an interim stay of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
Ultimately, the companyplainant was able to clear the goods by obtaining the necessary permission from the Government.
The goods were then packed in boxes and sealed by the appellants with their own seals which were signed by the companyplainant as well as the appellants.
On June 16, 1962, the accused appellants raided the premises of the companyplainant at 30, Pusa Road, New Delhi, and seized some of those imported goods which were meant for display in the International Industries Fair.
Subsequently, on August 22, 1966, the High Court made an order directing that all the goods which had been seized by the Customs Authorities from the companyplainant, including those which had been returned to him on Superdari, should be produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who was seized of a case under Section 5 of the Import and Export Control Act and Section 166 81 of the Sea Customs Act, regarding the goods, pending against the companyplainant.
The companyplainant went in further revision to the High Court, which was heard and allowed by a learned Judge by his judgment number under appeal before us.
Mukherjee, S. K. Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia for the Appellants.
Inventories of the goods were prepared by the appellants at the time of their seizure.
On November 20, 1963, the companyplainant made an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, praying that the goods seized by the appellants be handed over to him on Superdari as they were likely to deteriorate unless kept safely under proper companyditions.
Aggrieved, the companyplainant filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, on December 6, 1968, on the ground that since the shortage of goods was discovered at the time when they were produced before the Customs House, and there was absolutely numberhing to show that the goods in question remained in the personal custody of the appellants, it was difficult to hold that the shortage, if any, was due to the act of the accused.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The Customs, however, felt aggrieved by this order of the Magistrate and went in revision against it before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, who, on February 7, 1964, passed an order staying delivery of possession.
One companyy of the inventories, duly signed by the appellants and the companyplainant, also was handed over to him.
After companysidering the statements recorded in the preliminary enquiry, and the documents produced by the companyplainant, the Magistrate found a prima facie case under Sections 120B/409, I.P.C. against the three appellants.
He, therefore, directed that the accused appellants herein be summoned.
21 of 1973.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment, dated May 3, 1962, of the Delhi High Court, arises out of these circumstances S. Kochar, the respondent herein, filed a companyplaint in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, alleging that the appellants herein, who are officers of the Customs Department, had companymitted offences under Sections 120B/166/409, Indian Penal Code.
450/69.
Respondent in person.
In spite of the fact that he had obtained a valid Customs Clearance Permit for the import of these items of machinery, the Customs Authorities prevented him from clearing the goods from the Railway Station.
1 of M s. Gebr.
He imported certain items of machinery from the German firms for displaying them in the International Industries Fair held in New Delhi in November, 1961.
It was stated in the companyplaint as follows The companyplainant was the sole representative in India of various manufacturing companycerns in West Germany, and was carrying on business under the style of House of German Machinery.
Subsequently, by order dated April 3, 1965, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition and vacated the stay order.
On receiving the summons, the appellants appeared before the Magistrate and made an application praying for their immediate discharge, inter alia, on the ground that the Magistrate had numberjurisdiction to take companynizance of the companyplaint in the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, for prosecution of the appellants.
Ruhstrat, companycerning the companyplaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs under Section 5 of the Import Export Control Act, and Section 117 81 of the Sea Customs Act, which were also seized by appellant No.
In the result, he discharged the accused appellants, herein .
