Special statute controls antiquities prosecution; Customs Act cannot bypass mandatory expert determination before criminal proceedings.

A complaint for attempted export of antiquities could not proceed under the Customs Act because the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 provided a special, self-contained prosecution scheme. Coins over 100 years old were treated as antiquities, export without authority was prohibited, and section 24 required a final determination by the Director General or an authorised officer before prosecution. The materials showed only a prima facie view by a Superintendent, not the final statutory determination. Customs provisions could apply only for confiscation and ancillary consequences, so they could not be used to bypass the mandatory special procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint for attempted export of antiquities could validly be instituted under the Customs Act, 1962, or whether prosecution had to be launched under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 after compliance with section 24 of that Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated a coin as an antiquity if it had existed for not less than one hundred years, and section 3 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 prohibited export of such antiquities without authority. Section 4 of that Act made the Customs Act, 1962 applicable only in relation to confiscation of prohibited antiquities, while sections 25 and 26 specifically created the offence and provided the mode of prosecution under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act itself. Section 24 required any question whether an article was an antiquity to be referred to the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, or an authorised officer, and the decision on that question was made final. The materials showed only a prima facie view by a Superintendent, not the final determination contemplated by section 24. The Court held that the Customs Act could not be used to bypass the special prosecution scheme under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, and the reliance on general Customs provisions and on section 30 was misplaced.

Conclusion: The complaint under the Customs Act was not maintainable, and prosecution could not proceed without the final determination required by section 24 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were quashed because the special statute governed prosecution for the alleged export offence, while the Customs Act could operate only for confiscation and ancillary penal consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates a self-contained offence and prosecution mechanism, a general customs prosecution cannot be used to sidestep mandatory preconditions under the special statute; if the statute requires a final expert determination before prosecution, that requirement is jurisdictional.

---