Prior sanction and affidavit requirement do not bar a Section 200 complaint for non-cognizable excise offences.

Prosecution under the Central Excise Act was held not to require prior sanction on the facts presented, so the objection based on absence of sanction failed. The Karnataka HC also held that the affidavit requirement in Priyanka Srivastava is confined to applications under Section 156(3) after recourse to Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code, and does not extend to a complaint under Section 200 concerning non-cognizable excise offences. The challenge to the revisional order therefore failed, and the complaint was permitted to proceed before the Magistrate in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prosecution for the alleged offences under the Central Excise Act required prior sanction. (ii) Whether the affidavit requirement stated in Priyanka Srivastava applied to a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for non-cognizable excise offences.

Issue (i): Whether prosecution for the alleged offences under the Central Excise Act required prior sanction.

Analysis: The complaint was instituted for offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The challenge to the prosecution was founded on the absence of sanction, but the Court found that no provision of law made such sanction mandatory for initiating the prosecution in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The plea of absence of sanction was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the affidavit requirement stated in Priyanka Srivastava applied to a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for non-cognizable excise offences.

Analysis: The requirement of an affidavit in Priyanka Srivastava was linked to the filing of an application under Section 156(3) after resort to Sections 154(1) and 154(3). The present proceeding was a complaint under Section 200, and the offences under the Central Excise Act were treated as non-cognizable. On that basis, the Court held that the rule in Priyanka Srivastava did not govern the present complaint.

Conclusion: The affidavit objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the revisional order failed, and the matter was left to proceed before the Magistrate in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The affidavit requirement for invoking Section 156(3) is confined to that procedural route and does not apply to a complaint under Section 200 concerning non-cognizable offences where no statutory sanction is required.

---