Strict meaning of investigation under criminal procedure bars enhancement appeals based on customs and gold control departmental action.

Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the offence be investigated by an agency expressly empowered by the governing Central Act to conduct investigation in the legal sense of the Code. The Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act provide powers of search, seizure, arrest, examination, adjudication and sanction for prosecution, but not an investigation equivalent to a police investigation or a final report under Section 173(2). Because prosecution under those Acts proceeds by complaint and cognizance under Section 190(1)(a), departmental officers are not treated as an investigating agency for enhancement appeals. On that basis, appeals for enhancement of sentence through the Assistant Collector were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether officers of the Customs Department and the Assistant Collector under the Gold (Control) Act are an agency empowered to make investigation into offences under the relevant Central Acts within the meaning of Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to enable an appeal for enhancement of sentence at the instance of the Central Government; (ii) whether the appeals for enhancement of sentence filed through the Assistant Collector were maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether officers of the Customs Department and the Assistant Collector under the Gold (Control) Act are an agency empowered to make investigation into offences under the relevant Central Acts within the meaning of Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to enable an appeal for enhancement of sentence at the instance of the Central Government.

Analysis: The expression "investigation" in Section 377(2) was held to bear its strict legal meaning under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The governing test is whether the Central Act expressly empowers an agency to investigate the offence in the manner contemplated by the Code. The Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act contain powers of search, seizure, arrest, examination, adjudication and sanction for prosecution, but no express provision authorising investigation in the sense required by Section 377(2), and no provision corresponding to the filing of a final police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution under those Acts is launched by complaint and cognizance is taken under Section 190(1)(a), not on a police report under Section 190(1)(b). These features show that the departmental machinery is for enforcement and adjudication, not for criminal investigation in the statutory sense.

Conclusion: Officers under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act are not agencies empowered to make investigation within Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals for enhancement of sentence filed through the Assistant Collector were maintainable.

Analysis: Since the relevant offences were not investigated by an agency falling within Section 377(2), the Central Government had no competence to instruct the Public Prosecutor to present enhancement appeals in these cases. The appeals could not therefore be sustained on that footing.

Conclusion: The appeals for enhancement of sentence were not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeals challenging the inadequacy of sentence failed at the threshold on maintainability, and the convictions and sentences were left undisturbed. No order was made on disposal of the seized property in the appeal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal against inadequacy of sentence under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lies only where the offence has been investigated by an agency expressly empowered by the governing Central Act to conduct investigation in the legal sense recognised by the Code, and departmental powers of search, seizure, adjudication and complaint-based prosecution do not amount to such investigation.

---