Customs sanction for prosecution can sustain cognizance where statutory facts are clear and wording is not fatal.

Under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act, a previous sanction that authorises prosecution and states the relevant facts is sufficient to support cognizance; the exact wording of the sanction as one for complaint or prosecution is not fatal if the statutory basis is clear. The text also notes that the earlier authority relied on to distinguish sanction for prosecution from sanction for cognizance was not accepted on the facts, and the proceeding was treated as legally sustainable. The revisional challenge therefore failed, and the impugned order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance were invalid for want of proper sanction under the Customs Act, and whether the joint complaint under the Import and Export (Control) Act and the Customs Act was maintainable.

Analysis: The challenged proceeding concerned allegations under the Customs Act and the Import and Export (Control) Act. The petitioners assailed the complaint and cognizance order on the ground that the sanction granted by the Collector of Customs was only for prosecution and not for taking cognizance. Reliance was placed on earlier authority distinguishing sanction for prosecution from sanction for cognizance. The opposing view was that Section 137(1) of the Customs Act requires a previous sanction sufficient to enable the court to take cognizance, and that the form of the sanction is not decisive if the facts and statutory basis are clear. The Court accepted the later Division Bench view that a sanction under Section 137(1) authorises the court to take cognizance and that the wording of the sanction as one for filing a complaint or prosecution does not by itself invalidate the proceeding. The Court also held that the precedent relied upon by the petitioners did not assist them on the facts.

Conclusion: The sanction was held to be adequate for cognizance, the proceeding was not found to be bad in law, and the revisional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained and the revisional application was dismissed, leaving the prosecution to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act, a previous sanction that authorises prosecution and sets out the relevant facts is sufficient to sustain the court's cognizance, and the precise wording of the sanction is not fatal if the statutory requirement is otherwise met.

---