Court upholds order for prosecutions by C.B.I., finding valid authorization.

The court upheld the order allowing the prosecutions to proceed, finding that the Public Prosecutors of the C.B.I. were validly authorized to conduct prosecutions on behalf of the Central Government officers. It held that Section 210(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable, as only complaints by authorized officers under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 could be considered, and there was no provision for police investigation. The court dismissed the objections raised by the petitioners and found no illegality in the authorization of the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of prosecution by Senior Public Prosecutors and Special Public Prosecutors of the C.B.I. on behalf of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.
2. Applicability of Section 210(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the stay of proceedings until the receipt of final police reports.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Prosecution by Senior Public Prosecutors and Special Public Prosecutors of the C.B.I.:
The petitioners contended that the prosecution should not be conducted by the Senior Public Prosecutors and Special Public Prosecutors of the C.B.I. because the authorisation by the complainant (Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports) to the Public Prosecutor was invalid. They argued that Public Prosecutors could only conduct prosecutions on behalf of the Central Government, not on behalf of individual complainants. Under Section 25(1A) and Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Central Government may appoint Public Prosecutors for specific cases, but such appointments must be authorised correctly. The petitioners cited several cases, including Kannappan v. Abbas and Others and Naganna v. Krishna Murthy, to support their argument that Public Prosecutors cannot defend accused persons or conduct prosecutions without proper authorisation.

However, the court found that these cases were distinguishable. The Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Sriramulu, argued that the Central Government had authorised officers, including the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, to file complaints under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. These officers were part of the Central Government, and thus, the Public Prosecutors were validly authorised to conduct prosecutions on their behalf. The court referred to the decision in Kadiresan v. Kasim, which affirmed that Public Prosecutors could conduct prosecutions for government departments and agencies. Additionally, the court noted that Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows any person to conduct prosecution with the court's permission, which was granted in these cases.

2. Applicability of Section 210(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioners argued that the private complaints should be stayed under Section 210(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure until the receipt of final police reports, as first-information-reports had been registered by the C.B.I. but no final reports were filed. The court, however, held that Section 210(1) was not applicable in these cases. The court noted that under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, only complaints in writing by authorised officers could be taken cognizance of, and there was no provision for investigation under the Customs Act, 1962, or the Import and Export Act, 1947, by any officers concerned. Therefore, the filing of charge-sheets by the police was not contemplated, and the private complaints filed by authorised officers were valid.

The court concluded that the objections raised by the petitioners were not valid and upheld the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, allowing the prosecutions to proceed. The court found no illegality or impropriety in the authorisation of the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the complainant.

---