Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 6 5 1970 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl.
On the same date, i.e., March 9, 1963, Shri Banerjee actually filed a companyplaint against the said 14 persons accusing them of the companymission of offences under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and item 81 as well as section 5 aforesaid.
233 of 1972.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Shri Banerjee was authorised by the Chief Customs Officer, Calcutta, to prosecute the said persons for the companymission of offences under item 81 and section 5 above mentioned.
Revision No.
Four days later, i.e., on March 9, 1963.
739/68.
S. Markandey and S. Nayar for the Appellant.
Genl.,
K. Venugopal, Addl.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J. This appeal by special leave which is directed against a judgment dated May 6, 1970 of the High Court of Calcutta has arisen in the following circumstances.
C. Talukdar and Sukumar Ghosh for Respondent 3.
The application was granted on March 5, 1963 when the Chief Presidency Magistrate accorded the companysent asked for.
On March 2, 1963, Shri S. N. Banerjee, Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, made an application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, praying that companysent be given under section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 hereinafter called the Code to the prosecution of 14 persons in respect of an offence under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as they were guilty of a companyspiracy to companymit offences under item 81 of the Schedule to section 167 of the Sea Customs Act hereinafter referred to as the Act and section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act the Control Act, for short .
Obviously, for an offence of the nature charged, there can be only one companynizance and therefore the sanction under section 120B must also be obtained by an officer mentioned in section 187A Sea Customs Act, An argument put forward on behalf of Shri Banerjee that section 196A of the Code did number speak of any authorisation was repelled by the High Court in the following terms Mr. Mitra has also submitted that number only section 196A does number speak of any authority but that even after sanction, prosecution may number be initiated.
This, in our view is oversimplification of the matter.
