Mandatory sanction and written complaint requirements must be strictly proved before cognizance; unsupported prosecution under customs and gold laws fails.

Prior sanction and written complaint requirements under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act were treated as mandatory conditions precedent to cognizance. The sanction for prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act was held invalid because it did not specifically cover that offence and showed no proved application of mind to the relevant materials, so cognizance and conviction under that provision could not stand. Under the Gold (Control) Act, the complaint was invalid because the alleged written authorisation was not legally proved, and the prosecution also failed to prove that the seized article was gold or primary gold. Both convictions and the sentences were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution for an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was barred for want of a valid previous sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act. (ii) Whether the conviction under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act could be sustained in the absence of a valid complaint in writing or written authorisation under Section 97 of the Gold (Control) Act and in the absence of proof that the seized article was gold or primary gold.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution for an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was barred for want of a valid previous sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act.

Analysis: Sanction for prosecution under the Customs Act is a mandatory precondition for cognizance and must reflect application of mind to the facts constituting the offence. The sanction order did not specifically sanction prosecution for the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act and did not disclose the materials considered by the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority was not examined, and no other evidence established what materials were placed before him for forming satisfaction.

Conclusion: The sanction was invalid and cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was barred. The conviction under that provision could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act could be sustained in the absence of a valid complaint in writing or written authorisation under Section 97 of the Gold (Control) Act and in the absence of proof that the seized article was gold or primary gold.

Analysis: Cognizance under the Gold (Control) Act could be taken only on a complaint in writing by the competent Gold Control Officer or by a person authorised by him in writing. The alleged authorisation was not legally proved, so the complaint filed by the Assistant Collector could not be treated as valid. In addition, the prosecution failed to establish that the seized material was gold within Section 3(j) or primary gold within Section 3(r), which was necessary to attract Section 85.

Conclusion: The complaint was invalid and the essential ingredients of the offence were not proved. The conviction under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: Both convictions and the sentences imposed thereunder were set aside, and the revision was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes prior sanction or a written complaint a condition precedent to cognizance, strict compliance and proof of due application of mind are mandatory, and failure to prove the statutory precondition vitiates the prosecution and conviction.

---