Sanction order application of mind and broader circumstantial evidence justified proceeding to charge despite retracted statement.

A discharge order was held unsustainable where the sanction for prosecution disclosed application of mind to the material before the authority, and the order was not invalid merely because it did not state who supplied the information or how the facts came to notice. The prosecution case was also found to rest on a broader circumstantial record and departmental witness material, not only on a retracted statement under the Customs Act. Where some witnesses had not been examined, the trial court could summon additional evidence instead of terminating the proceedings at the threshold; the matter was directed to proceed to charge and trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order discharging the accused was sustainable in law on the grounds of alleged non-application of mind in the sanction order and alleged insufficiency of evidence.

Analysis: The sanction for prosecution was challenged on the footing that the authority had merely reproduced the complaint. The Court held that a sanction order is not required to disclose who informed the authority or the manner in which the facts came to its knowledge, and that the relevant question is whether the authority applied its mind to the material placed before it. The Court further held that the prosecution case was not confined to the retracted statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, but was supported by a broader sequence of circumstantial evidence and departmental witness material. If some witnesses were not examined, the trial court could invoke its power to summon additional evidence rather than terminate the proceedings at the threshold.

Conclusion: The discharge order was unsustainable and was set aside; the matter was directed to proceed with framing of charge and trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A discharge cannot be sustained where the sanction order shows application of mind and the prosecution case is supported by material beyond a retracted statement, especially when the trial court has power to summon further evidence to reach the truth.

---