Consent to prosecute cannot imply a separate customs authorisation condition unless the statute clearly makes it mandatory.

Consent to prosecute under Section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not depend on a request by an officer specially authorised under Section 187A of the Sea Customs Act. Section 196A contained no such implied condition, while Section 187A operated only as a bar to cognizance for offences under the relevant customs provision. Because the complaint was made after the required customs authorisation had been obtained, the two provisions were treated as operating in their own fields. The consent was therefore valid, the objection to prosecution failed, and the trial was directed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether consent for prosecution under Section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was invalid for want of an application by an officer authorised under Section 187A of the Sea Customs Act.

Analysis: Section 196A of the Code did not impose any requirement that the request for consent must be made by a person specially authorised under the Sea Customs Act. The statutory bar in Section 187A of the Sea Customs Act operated only in relation to cognizance of offences under Item 81 of the Schedule to Section 167, and the complaint here had been made after the relevant customs authorisation had been obtained. The two provisions operated in their own fields, and no additional condition of authorisation could be read into Section 196A merely because the conspiracy related to customs offences.

Conclusion: The consent was valid and the objection to the prosecution failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the trial was directed to continue from the stage at which it had been interrupted.

Ratio Decidendi: A requirement of authorisation cannot be implied into a provision governing consent to prosecution unless the statute expressly makes such authorisation a condition precedent.

---