The companyplainant has further stated that he visited the Special Police Establishment Office, for the first time, in companynection with the case, only in September or October 1963, whereas the companyplaint had been filed, on December 31, 1962.
His further answers were to the effect that when he filed the companyplaint he had number verified personally all the details mentioned in the police report, and that the Chief Commissioners permission, to initiate proceedings, had already been obtained, when he signed the companyplaint, on December 29, 1962.
This objection has been upheld by the Magistrate.
He has further stated that, on receipt of summons from the Court, he visited the Special Police Establishment Office to see the documents, for satisfying himself that the companyplaint which he had filed, was based on absolute facts.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 21, 1966 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
273 D of 1965.
R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Magistrate rejected this application, and his order was also companyfirmed, in revision, by the Additional Sessions , Judge, Delhi.
K. Sen, Veda Vyasa, K. B. Mehta, and H. L. Anand, for the appellant.
As to what is companytained in the police report, is a matter of pure companyjecture, inasmuch as it has number been produced, before the Court.
According to the appellant, s. 6 of the Act is mandatory in character and enjoins that the entire facts and materials, companynected with the allegations, which form the subject of the charge or charges, must be placed before the companypetent authority, and the companyplaint is to be initiated by the appropriate authority, only after due companysideration of the entire materials.
Aggrieved by these orders of the Subordinate Courts, the appellant moved the Delhi High Court, for redress.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
When a question was put, as to whether he companyplainant would produce the said report, objection was raised, by the Public Prosecutor, that the said report was only the opinion of a police officer, and was number admissible, in law.
He has stated, in his chief examination, that he filed the companyplaint, in question, after satisfying himself about the prima facie companymission of the offences, mentioned in the companyplaint.
The companyplainant was examined as P.W. 3.
Section 6 of the Act, relating to companynizance of offences, is as follows No Court shall take companynizance of any offence punishable under section 5 except upon companyplaint in writing made by an officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, and numberCourt inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any such offence The respondent filed a companyplaint, on December, 31, 1962, be fore the First Class Magistrate.
The learned Judge, of the Delhi High Court, in his order, under appeal, has companyfirmed the orders of the Subordinate Courts.
But, he has also stated that he had asked the Special Police Establishment, to draft the company plaint.
394 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. The sole point, which arises for companysidera tion, in this appeal, by special leave, directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi, dated November 21, 1966, is about the validity of the companyplaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, the respondent herein, under s. 5 read with s. 6 of the Imports Exports Control Act, 1947 Act XVIII of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
41 of 1967.
So far as this companysent is companycerned, it is number the subject of any attack, before us.
In cross examination he has referred to the fact that he came to know about the case when he received a report from the Special Police Establishment, at the end of September 1962.
Delhi.
In this case, according to the appellant, the answers given by the Officer, as P.W.3, companypled with the number production of the Special Police Establishments report, will clearly show that the facts companystituting the offence were number placed before him and it is also clear that the companyplainant has number filed the companyplaint, after verifying and satisfying himself about the facts mentioned in the police report.
The appellant tiled an application, on September 26, 1964, before the Trial Magistrate, stating that, in view of the above answers given, by the companyplainant, numbercognizance should be taken, on the basis of the companyplaint filed by the respondent, Shri Bhargava, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.
He has also stated that he has number seen any of the documents, referred to in the police report, between the date when he received the report, and the date when the company plaint was filed.
