Valid prosecution sanction and unexplained delay challenge failed, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

A sanction for prosecution is valid when granted by a statutorily competent authority and supported by consideration of relevant material; here, the Additional Collector was within the definition of "Collector" under the Customs Act, and the record did not show mechanical approval or non-application of mind. A challenge based on delay in the criminal trial also failed because the delay was explained by the record and was partly attributable to the accused, so it did not justify quashing. The prosecution was therefore permitted to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sanction for prosecution was invalid for want of competence or non-application of mind; (ii) whether the criminal proceedings deserved to be quashed on the ground of delay.

Issue (i): Whether the sanction for prosecution was invalid for want of competence or non-application of mind.

Analysis: The definition of "Collector" under the Customs Act included the Additional Collector, so sanction granted by the Additional Collector was within jurisdiction. The sanction order showed consideration of the relevant material relating to recovery and seizure of currency and the incriminating circumstances. The alleged prior complaints were not shown to have been placed before the sanctioning authority, and the record did not support the plea that sanction had been granted mechanically or without consideration of material.

Conclusion: The sanction was valid and the objection to competency and non-application of mind failed, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal proceedings deserved to be quashed on the ground of delay.

Analysis: The delay in the trial was explained by the record called for from the trial court, and the order sheets showed that the petitioner had also contributed to the delay. The court therefore found no basis to grant relief on this ground.

Conclusion: The delay ground did not justify quashing, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on both the sanction challenge and the delay plea, and the prosecution was allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A sanction for prosecution is not invalid where it is accorded by a statutorily competent authority and the record shows consideration of relevant material; delay, when explained and partly attributable to the accused, does not by itself warrant quashing of criminal proceedings.

---