Attempt to export currency without permit and timing of cognizance upheld under foreign exchange law.

Concealed currency notes carried into the customs enclosure with declarations that nothing further was to be declared, while the traveller was preparing to board an outbound flight, amounted to an attempt to export currency without the required permit; actual crossing of the customs frontier was unnecessary because the offence was complete at the stage of attempt. The Court also held that cognizance was not taken when the Magistrate permitted investigation, issued a search warrant, or issued an arrest warrant for investigative purposes; cognizance arose only when the authorised complaint was filed and the Magistrate applied his mind to proceed with trial. The conviction and proceedings were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to an attempt to take currency notes out of India without a permit and was punishable under the foreign exchange and customs laws. (ii) Whether the Additional District Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 16-9-1952 so that the proceedings were without jurisdiction for want of prior authorization under the foreign exchange law.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to an attempt to take currency notes out of India without a permit and was punishable under the foreign exchange and customs laws.

Analysis: The facts accepted by the High Court showed that the appellant had entered the customs enclosure with concealed currency notes, answered that he had nothing further to declare, and was found with Rs. 25,000 hidden in secret pockets while preparing to board a flight out of India. The Court held that the act had gone beyond preparation and amounted to an attempt to export the currency without the requisite permit. An attempt to contravene the foreign exchange restrictions was punishable, and the absence of actual crossing of the customs frontier did not assist the appellant where the attempt itself was complete.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Additional District Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 16-9-1952 so that the proceedings were without jurisdiction for want of prior authorization under the foreign exchange law.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between steps taken during investigation and the taking of cognizance. Permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence, issue of a search warrant, and issuance of a warrant of arrest for investigative purposes did not amount to cognizance. The Magistrate continued to treat the matter as under investigation on the later dates when time for investigation was extended. Cognizance was taken only when the authorized complaint was filed on 2-2-1953 and the Magistrate then applied his mind to proceed with the case for trial. Since authorization had been obtained before the complaint, there was no jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was upheld because the conduct amounted to an punishable attempt and the criminal proceedings were lawfully initiated after valid cognizance was taken.

Ratio Decidendi: Cognizance is taken when the Magistrate applies his mind to the complaint for the purpose of proceeding under the criminal process for trial, and not when he merely authorizes investigation or issues process such as a search or arrest warrant for investigative purposes.

---