https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42246 Prior sanction and written complaint requirements under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act were treated as mandatory conditions precedent to cognizance. The sanction for prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act was held invalid because it did not specifically cover that offence and showed no proved application of mind to the relevant materials, so cognizance and conviction under that provision could not stand. Under the Gold (Control) Act, the complaint was invalid because the alleged written authorisation was not legally proved, and the prosecution also failed to prove that the seized article was gold or primary gold. Both convictions and the sentences were set aside. en-us Tue, 13 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:32:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42246 Prior sanction and written complaint requirements under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act were treated as mandatory conditions precedent to cognizance. The sanction for prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act was held invalid because it did not specifically cover that offence and showed no proved application of mind to the relevant materials, so cognizance and conviction under that provision could not stand. Under the Gold (Control) Act, the complaint was invalid because the alleged written authorisation was not legally proved, and the prosecution also failed to prove that the seized article was gold or primary gold. Both convictions and the sentences were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42246