Official-duty protection barred criminal prosecution where Customs officers acted on intelligence and prosecution sanction was refused.

Criminal proceedings against Customs officials were found unsustainable where the alleged acts arose during preventive duty on specific intelligence about smuggling of fake Indian currency notes. The documentary record showed a reasonable connection between the complained-of conduct and the discharge of official functions, and the sanctioning authority had refused prosecution sanction after treating the acts as protected good-faith actions taken in pursuance of official duty. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal case without the necessary sanction was treated as unjustified and liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of court.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings against Customs for alleged offences could be quashed on the ground that the acts complained of were done in discharge of official duty and sanction for prosecution had been refused.

Analysis: The materials on record showed that the petitioners were Customs officials on preventive duty acting on specific intelligence regarding smuggling of fake Indian currency notes. The documentary record, including the official circular and correspondence, indicated that the alleged incident occurred while they were performing their official functions. The Court also noted that the sanctioning authority had declined sanction after considering the facts and had taken the view that the petitioners were entitled to protection for acts done in good faith in pursuance of their official duties. Since there was a reasonable connection between the alleged acts and the discharge of official duty, and the prosecution lacked the necessary sanction, continuation of the criminal case was held to be unjustified.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of court.

---