By his subsequent orders time for investigation was further extended until February 2, 1953.
The appellant had his ticket to proceed to Hong Kong by a plane which was due to leave Dum Dum Airport at 8 30 a.m. and the customs formalities were done in companynection with that flight.
The Customs Officers, however, numbericed a pouch of somewhat unusual size which aroused their suspicion.
Thereafter, the appellant was tried by another Magistrate, Mr. Sinha, who acquitted him under s. 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
FERA 105/55 RB, dated February 27, 1951.
It was on September 16, that the Reserve Bank had received an application of the appellant forwarded by one G.C. Joshi by his letter dated September 15, 1952.
It is clear, therefore, that upto September 16, 1952, the Additional District Magistrate had number taken companynizance of any offence.
To 26th March, 1952 and 27th March, 1952 for evidence.
The following observation by Das Gupta, J., in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerji 1 was approved by this Court in the case of R. Chari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 2 A.I.R. 1950 Cal 437.
The Additional District Magistrate thereon recorded the following order Seen the companyplaint filed to day against the accused Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas under section 8 2 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with Section 23B thereof read with Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act and Notification No.
Seen Police report.
Under s. 155 3 of the Code a police officer being permitted to investigate a number cognizable offence may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation as an officer incharge of a police station may exercise in a companynizable case, except that he has number the power to arrest without a warrant.
The prosecution case was that on September 7, 1952, the appellant went to Dum Dum Aerodrome with a view to boarding a plane for Hong Kong.
The High Court allowed the appeal and companyvicted the appellant of the offence with which he had been charged.
The version of the appellant as to how the sum of Rs.
Inspector Mitras application definitely states that he in asking for permission to investigate a number cognizable offence under s. 155, Cr.
7 of 1954, arising out of the judgment and order dated April 3, 1954, of the Court of 1st Class Magistrate at Alipore.
On the search of the trousers a sum of Rs.
Accordingly, on the same date Mr. Sinha then recorded the following order Accused present.
The main submission made on behalf of the appellant before us has been that the Additional District Magistrate having taken companynizance of the offence on September 16, 1952, and as the provisions of s. 23 3 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act had number been companyplied with, the entire proceedings before him and the Magistrate who tried the case were without jurisdiction.
It would also appear from the order of Mr. Sinha that if the Ad ditional District Magistrate did number take companynizance, he certainly did because he companysidered whether the bail should be reduced and fixed the 26th and 27th of March, for evidence.
He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
The orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate on September 16, 1952, September 19, 1952, November 19, 1952, and January 2, 1953, were orders passed while the investigation by the police into a number cognizable offence was in progress.
5,000 each.
According to the appellant, he had applied to the Reserve Bank of India at Calcutta for a permit and had sent an application for that purpose to one Joshi in Calcutta.
It was, however, argued that when Mitra applied for a search warrant on September, 16, 1952, the Additional District Magistrate had recorded an order thereon, Permitted.
The currency numberes which had been seized by the Customs Officials were directed to be relassed.
The High Court thought that the companytention of the appellant raised a question of law and granted the requisite certificate for appeal to this Court.
Time allowed till 19th November, 1952, for companypleting investigation.
25,000 was companysidered by the High Court.
When they were about to search his person he let drop his trousers.
The application of the appellant bore the date September 2, 1952.
Petition filed for reduction of bail.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 5, 1956, of the Calcutta High Court in Government Appeal No.
It was also urged that explanation offered by the appellant was accepted by the trying Magistrate and the High Court ought number to have set aside the acquittal of the appellant, there being numbergood ground why his explanation should number have been accepted.
Accordingly, a companyplaint was filed on February 2,1953.
25,000 in currency numberes was with him was that he was number searched at all at the Customs barrier.
It was also urged that the facts found did number attract the provisions of s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act 8 of 1878 as it companyld number be said that at the moment the appellant was searched by the Customs Officials, he was taking out of India across any customs frontier as defined by the Central Government the currency numberes in question.
He had at numbertime any intention to carry out of India the said currency numberes without a permit.
Under s. 155 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, numberpolice officer shall investigate a number cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate of the first or second class having power to try such a case or companymit the same for trial, or of a Presidency Magistrate.
To Sri M. N. Sinha, S.D.M. Sadar , Magistrate 1st class spl.
He failed to receive the permit upto the last moment.
This version of the appellant was accepted by the trying Magistrate who acquitted him.
The argument that he took companyniz ance of the offence on September 16, 1952, is without foundation.
On that date the companyplaint was filed and the order of the Additional District Magistrate clearly indicated that he took companynizance of the offence and sent the case for trial to Mr. Sinha.
On November 19, the appellant asked for exemption from attending the companyrt on the succes sive dates fixed for the case but the application was refused.
The subsequent authorization by the Reserve Bank on January 27, 1953, and the filing of the companyplaint on February 2,1953 companyld number make legal proceedings which had already companymenced without jurisdiction.
On September 19, 1952, the appellant appeared before the Additional District Magistrate who recorded the following order He is to give bail of Rs.
50,000 with 10 sureties of Rs.
The appellant was requested to lift up the trousers and wear them again which he did.
On November 19, 1952, on perusal of the police report the Magistrate allowed further time for investigation until January 2, 1953, and on that date time was further extended to February 2, 1953.
P.C. The order of the Additional District Magistrate directing the issue of a search warrant and the word permitted companytained therein we companysider, in the companytext of the application, to mean that he granted the sanction for investigation as asked for.
It was necessary therefore for Inspector Mitra to obtain from the Additional District Magistrate a warrant of arrest.
If the initiation of the proceedings was without jurisdiction, the companyviction companyld number stand.
in the meantime, on January 27, 1953, Inspector Mitra had been authorized under s. 23 3 b of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to file a companyplaint.
Seen the letter of authority.
50,000 with ten sureties of Rs.
Mitra thereupon applied to the Additional District, Magistrate on September 16, 1952, for a search warrant to be issued which was allowed.
Against the appellants acquittal the State of West Bengal preferred an appeal to the High Court.
On an enquiry by the Customs Officers as to whether he had any other articles besides what he had declared in the declara tion form, the appellant answered in the negative.
The order of the Magistrate directing the release of the currency numberes was set aside.
As already stated, the order of the Additional District Magistrate of September 19, 1952, makes it quite clear that he was still regarding the matter as one under investigation.
If the appellant had successfully cleared himself from the customs formalities all that was left for him to do was to board the plane which would take him out of India.
On September 11, 1952, the Reserve Bank of India authorized Inspector S. B. Mitra of the Special Police Establishment, Calcutta, to make a representation to the Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas hereinafter referred to as the Additional District Magistrate for permission to proceed against the appellant as required under s. 19 3 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.
empowered for favour of disposal according to law.
This application was obviously made under the Criminal Procedure Code, The offence which the appellant is alleged to have companymitted was a number cognizable offence.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
His intention was to hand over the money to the Customs Officers for safe custody.
The first was that the search companyducted by the Customs officials which had resulted in the detection of the currency numberes on the person of the appellant had number been a legal search and companysequently numberproceedings companyld be based on the purported detection made.
5,000 each.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM T. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court.
On September 19, he was released on bail by the Additional District Magistrate in the sum of Rs.
In other words, the appellants version, in substance, was that as he had failed to get the permit upto the last moment he voluntarily handed over the currency numberes in question to the Customs Officers at the customs barrier for safe keeping.
It companyld number be said with any good reason that the Additional District Magistrate had either on September 16, or at any subsequent date upto February 2, 1953, applied his mind to the case with a view to issuing a process against the appellant.
The second point urged on behalf of the appellant was that on September 16, 1952, when the Magistrate issued the warrant of arrest against the appellant he companyld number have done so without having previously taken companynizance of the offence.
On January 27, 1953, the Reserve Bank of India authorized Mitra to file a companyplaint against the appellant.
The Customs Officers instead of giving him a receipt falsely charged him with smuggling the currency numberes out of India without any permit.
1,000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
12 of 1957.
The plane was due to leave the airport at 8 30 a.m. The appellant had to go through the customs formalities before he companyld board the plane.
Since, however, the authorization required under s. 23 3 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act VII of 1947 was number obtained till January 27, 1953, the companynizance taken by the Magistrate on September 16, 1952, was without jurisdiction.
This was also allowed and a warrant of arrest was issued by the Additional District Magistrate and appellant was thereafter arrested and released on bail with a direction to appear before the Additional District Magistrate on September 19.
On September 16, Mitra applied for a warrant of arrest against the appellant.
N. Shroff, for the appellant.
25,000, in currency numberes were found companycealed in the inner pockets.
Thereafter, the appellant was subjected to personal search.
Mitra on the same date also applied to the same Magistrate that a warrant of arrest might be issued against the appellant.
May 7.
Ishwar Lal C. Dalal and 1.
Issue search warrant.
25,000 in Indian currency numberes was discovered in two secret pockets.
They were companycealed from below the surface and opened from the inside.
It found, on the evidence of the Superintendent of the Reserve Bank, that the Reserve Bank received numberapplication from the appellant before September 7, 1952, number had the Reserve Bank granted the permission to the appellant to take any currency numberes out of India.
J. Umrigar, and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
This point was rejected by the Bench.
had taken out the currency numberes in question from his trouser pocket and handed over the same to the Customs Officers stating the circumstances under which he was carrying the same on his person and asked for a receipt.
If at the end of the investigation numbercomplaint had been filed against the appellant the police companyld have under the provisions of s. 169 of the Code released him on his executing a bond with or without sureties to appear if and when so required before the Additional District Magistrate empowered to take companynizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or companymit him for trial.
Considering all facts, bail granted for Rs.
F.E.R.A. 105/51 dated the 27th February, 1951, as amended, issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 8 2 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
On February 2,1953, a companyplaint was filed against the appellant charging him with an offence under s. 8 2 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act and numberification No.
25,000 with 5 sureties.
His baggage was then examined but numberobjectionable article was detected therein.
Accused to appear before him.
It is clear from these orders that on September 19, 1952, the Additional District Magistrate had number taken companynizance of the offence because he had allowed the police time till November 19, 1952, for companypleting the investigation.
