Special Public Prosecutor competence upheld in Central Government complaint cases; Section 210 stay not attracted where police investigation is not pending.

A Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may conduct a prosecution arising from a Central Government complaint, even where the complaint was instituted by the Collector of Customs. The Court treated the Customs and Imports and Exports departments as Central Government departments and rejected the objection that the complainant could not authorise such prosecution. Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held inapplicable because cognizance of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act offence could be taken only on a written complaint by an authorised officer, and the prior police investigation did not amount to a pending investigation requiring stay of trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Public Prosecutor appointed for the Special Police Establishment could conduct the prosecution in a private complaint instituted by the Collector of Customs, and whether the pendency or completion of police investigation attracted Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 so as to warrant stay of the trial.

Analysis: The complaint was a Central Government complaint relating to alleged offences under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Customs Act, 1962, along with offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the Customs Department and the Imports and Exports Department are departments of the Central Government, and that the Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the Special Police Establishment was competent to prosecute the case even though it had been instituted on a private complaint. The contention that the complainant could not authorise such prosecution was rejected. On Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court held that the provision was not attracted because cognizance of the offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 could be taken only on a written complaint by an authorised officer, and the circumstance that the police had investigated the matter did not mean that the police investigation was still in progress so as to require a stay. The Court also noted that any use of prior statements or documents could be met in accordance with Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The Special Public Prosecutor was competent to conduct the prosecution in the complaint case, and Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not require the proceedings to be stayed.

Ratio Decidendi: A Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may conduct a prosecution arising from a Central Government complaint, and Section 210 is not attracted where the case is not one in which police investigation remains pending in the statutory sense.

---