2017 (1) TMI 1308 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses petition challenging Customs Act application dismissal, officer not protected under Section 155(2)

Atul Dikshit Versus C.B.I.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 155 of the Customs Act. It held that the protection under ... Proceedings against the IRS officer working as Commissioner of Customs - period of limitation for initiating criminal proceedings - Offences punishable u/s 120B read with Section 420 IPC and u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act - right of protection u/s 155(2) of the Customs Act - no proceedings other than a ‘suit’ can be initiated against him after expiration of three months from the accrual of cause of action - Held that: - allegations against the petitioner are that instead of securing government revenue, he hatched conspiracy with coaccused to cause undue pecuniary advantage to the private party and ordered release of duty draw back - The impugned order based upon fair appreciation of facts and law warrants no intervention. - petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to the dismissal of an application under Section 155 of Customs Act.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 155 of the Customs Act by the Special Judge-03, CBI. The petitioner faced trial for offenses under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. The petitioner, an officer of Indian Revenue Services, was working as Commissioner of Customs, ICD-Tughlaqabad, New Delhi. The petitioner argued that the criminal prosecution initiated against him was beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act. The respondent contended that the provisions of Section 155(2) were not applicable in this case and the application was an attempt to delay the trial, which was already in progress.The petitioner relied on various judgments to support the claim that the prosecution was time-barred under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act. However, the court noted that the judgments cited were not directly applicable to the present case. The court highlighted the changes brought about by the amendment in Section 40 of the Central Excise Act and emphasized that Section 155(2) of the Customs Act did not specify any limitation for initiating criminal prosecution. The court clarified that the word 'prosecution' was absent in Section 155(2), unlike in the former Section 40(2) of the Central Excise Act.The court further discussed previous judgments and legal provisions to establish that the protection under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act did not extend to criminal prosecution. The court referenced a case where a Customs Officer was protected from criminal prosecution under Section 155 read with Section 106 of the Customs Act, highlighting the specific circumstances that warranted such protection. The court concluded that the allegations against the petitioner did not qualify for the protection under Section 155(2) and dismissed the petition, affirming the fair appreciation of facts and law in the impugned order. The court also clarified that the observations made in the order would not impact the merits of the case.In summary, the judgment addressed the challenge to the dismissal of an application under Section 155 of the Customs Act, focusing on the applicability of the limitation period for initiating criminal prosecution. The court analyzed relevant legal provisions, past judgments, and the specific circumstances of the case to determine that the protection under Section 155(2) did not extend to the petitioner in this instance. The petition was ultimately dismissed, upholding the fairness of the impugned order and ensuring no impact on the case's merits.