Special statute excludes Customs Act prosecution for antiquities violations, while confiscation and penalty may still apply.

Prosecution under the Customs Act for alleged export of antiquities was treated as unsustainable because the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 supplies a special statutory machinery for such contraventions. The Delhi HC applied the principle that a special enactment excludes prosecution under the general fiscal statute to that extent, while leaving confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act available where otherwise applicable. On that basis, the discharge order was upheld and the revision petitions failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained where the alleged export involved antiquities governed by the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the interaction between the Customs Act and the special regime created by the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The Court relied on the earlier decision holding that, after the enactment of the special statute, the Customs Act continues to operate for confiscation and penalty, but not for prosecution in respect of violations covered by the antiquities legislation. It was noted that a separate machinery exists under the special Act for dealing with such contraventions.

Conclusion: Prosecution under the Customs Act was not sustainable for the alleged violation, and the discharge order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed because the criminal prosecution under the Customs Act could not be maintained in the face of the special statutory scheme governing antiquities.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special enactment provides its own machinery for dealing with a contravention, prosecution under the general fiscal statute is excluded to that extent, though confiscation and penalty under that statute may still remain available.

---