Forged export documents and police investigation: Magistrate may order inquiry under criminal procedure despite pending Customs action.

Allegations that a shipping bill was forged and used without any actual export were treated as broader criminality, not merely an untrue drawback claim under the Customs Act; the contention that the matter lay only within Customs jurisdiction was rejected. A Magistrate empowered under section 190 could validly direct police investigation under section 156(3), and that course was not rendered illegal because cognizance was also possible or Customs proceedings were pending. The challenge to the order therefore failed, and the direction for police investigation was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged forged and false duty drawback claim disclosed offences under the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the Magistrate could direct police investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 instead of confining the matter to Customs investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged forged and false duty drawback claim disclosed offences under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The alleged conduct was not a mere case of making an untrue statement in a shipping bill or over-invoicing for excess drawback. The allegation was that the shipping bill itself had been forged and used without any actual export. On that footing, the matter was distinguishable from a fraudulent drawback based on misdescription in export documents, and the Court found no sufficient basis to treat the allegation, on the facts then before it, as one requiring primacy under the Customs Act as suggested by the Customs.

Conclusion: The contention that the matter was to be treated only as an offence under the Customs Act was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate could direct police investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 instead of confining the matter to Customs investigation.

Analysis: The Magistrate had referred to the power to take cognizance under section 190, but the actual course adopted was direction for investigation, which is supported by section 156(3). A Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such investigation, and the decision to do so does not become illegal merely because the matter is serious or because cognizance may also be contemplated. The Court also relied on the principle that investigation by police may be directed even where cognizance is otherwise open to the Magistrate.

Conclusion: The Magistrate's direction for police investigation was held to be valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order failed, and the direction for police investigation was sustained while the revision petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts disclose forged documentation and a broader criminality beyond the Customs allegation, a Magistrate empowered under section 190 may validly order police investigation under section 156(3), and such direction is not invalid merely because Customs investigation is already underway.

---