Procedural lapse in publication of process cannot justify dismissal of a criminal complaint without a further opportunity to comply.

A criminal complaint under the Customs Act should not be dismissed for non-prosecution merely because of a procedural lapse in publication of process under Section 82 CrPC. The Court stated that, where such a lapse occurs, the proper course is to grant a further opportunity to comply with the procedure and, if necessary, impose costs rather than terminate the complaint abruptly. The dismissal was therefore unsustainable, and the complaint was restored to its original stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution on the ground of alleged failure to take steps for publication of process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified, and whether the complaint was liable to be restored.

Analysis: The complaint arose from allegations under the Customs Act, 1962. The dismissal was founded on an alleged lapse in publication of process and the absence of the accused's statutory period for appearance. The Court held that the complaint ought not to have been dismissed in haste or in an arbitrary manner merely because of a procedural lapse on the part of the complainant. Where there is a lapse, the proper course is to afford one more opportunity, and if necessary to impose costs, rather than to terminate the complaint at that stage. The order dismissing the complaint was therefore found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was set aside and the complaint case was restored to its original number and stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal complaint should not be dismissed for non-prosecution on account of a procedural lapse in publication of process without first affording a further opportunity to comply with the requisite procedure.

---