Customs limitation protection barred prosecution where omission fell within statutory cover and notice was not given in time.

A prosecution against a customs officer was treated as barred by limitation under section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 because the alleged omission fell within the provision's protective language for acts purportedly done in pursuance of the Act, and the proceeding had been initiated beyond the statutory period without the requisite notice. The chargesheet was treated as duly forwarded under section 173(2) of the CrPC, and the sanction for prosecution under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was found to be based on relevant materials and not mechanical. The proceeding was quashed as against the petitioner, while continuing against the other accused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the criminal proceeding was barred by limitation under section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the chargesheet and sanction for prosecution suffered from legal infirmity.

Issue (i): Whether the criminal proceeding was barred by limitation under section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The alleged cause of action arose in May 1995, while the criminal proceeding was initiated after about 14 months. The protection under section 155(2) was held applicable to the petitioner's omission in the discharge of customs duties, since the expression covering acts purported to be done in pursuance of the Act was treated as wide enough to include illegal omissions and infractions. The proceeding was therefore found to have been commenced beyond the statutory period and without the requisite notice.

Conclusion: The proceeding was barred by limitation under section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the chargesheet and sanction for prosecution suffered from legal infirmity.

Analysis: The chargesheet was treated as duly forwarded by the Superintendent of Police in terms of section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The sanctioning authority was found to have considered the relevant materials, witness statements, and documents before granting sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the sanction was not held to be mechanical or application of mind.

Conclusion: No illegality was found in the forwarding of the chargesheet or in the sanction for prosecution, and this contention failed against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceeding was quashed insofar as the petitioner was concerned, while proceedings against the other accused were left to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution against a government officer for an omission purportedly done in pursuance of the Customs Act can be barred by section 155(2) where it is initiated beyond the statutory notice and limitation period, and such omission may fall within the protective phrase used in the provision.

---