1988 (2) TMI 76 - HC - Customs

Petition Dismissed: Special Prosecutor's Competence Upheld

SHANTI SWARUP Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Special Public Prosecutor was competent to conduct the prosecution, Section 210 Cr. P.C. was not ... Stay of prosecution - Private complaint Issues Involved:1. Competence of the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution in a private complaint.2. Compliance with Section 210 Cr. P.C. regarding the stay of proceedings.3. Alleged prejudice against the petitioner due to the involvement of the Special Public Prosecutor.4. Validity of the authorisation for the Special Public Prosecutor to appear in the case.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Competence of the Special Public Prosecutor:The petitioner contended that the Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I., is not competent to conduct the prosecution in a private complaint initiated by the Collector of Customs, Madras. The petitioner argued that the Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I., is not authorised to appear for any department other than the Central Government and that there is no valid authorisation for him to conduct the prosecution for offences under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the Customs Act, 1962. The court, however, found that the Special Public Prosecutor has been appointed under Section 24(8) Cr. P.C. by the Central Government for the Special Police Establishment, and since the Customs Department and the Controller of Imports and Exports are Central Government departments, the contention that the Special Public Prosecutor cannot prosecute the case was deemed without force.2. Compliance with Section 210 Cr. P.C.:The petitioner argued that under Section 210 Cr. P.C., if during the trial of a private complaint it is revealed that a police investigation regarding the same offence is in progress, the court should stay all further proceedings and call for the final report from the police officer. The court noted that although the Special Police Establishment had investigated the case, no final report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. had been submitted. The court concluded that since the complaint was filed under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and cognizance could only be taken on a complaint by an authorised officer, the investigation was not ongoing, and Section 210 Cr. P.C. was not applicable.3. Alleged Prejudice Against the Petitioner:The petitioner claimed that the prosecution of the private complaint by the Public Prosecutor would cause substantial prejudice, as the procedure for summoning witnesses by the Public Prosecutor differs from that in a private complaint case. The court addressed this concern by stating that the petitioner and other accused can invoke Section 161 Cr. P.C. or Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act if the prosecution uses statements given by witnesses during the investigation. Additionally, the court mentioned that the Delhi High Court had directed the prosecution to furnish copies of all documents related to the investigation, although an appeal against this decision was pending in the Supreme Court.4. Validity of Authorisation:The petitioner argued that even if there was authorisation for the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution, it was illegal because the Special Public Prosecutor of C.B.I. is not a pleader for any other department than the Central Government. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Customs Department and the Imports and Exports Department are Central Government departments. Therefore, the prosecution conducted by the Special Public Prosecutor of the Special Police Establishment was deemed valid.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, finding that the Special Public Prosecutor was competent to conduct the prosecution, Section 210 Cr. P.C. was not applicable, there was no substantial prejudice against the petitioner, and the authorisation for the Special Public Prosecutor was valid.