TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issed and charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been ordered to be framed. Criminal miscellaneous petition bearing CRM-M-10284-2011 has been filed for quashing of FIR No.RCCHG2009A0019 dated 10.06.2009 qua petitioner, registered at Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh under Sections 120-B & 420 IPC, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 66 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. As per the prosecution, during the year 2008-09, at Ludhiana, accused Parminder Kumar and Amandeep Singh by entering into a criminal conspiracy with accused KK Sharma and other customs officers, floated non-existent firms namely M/s SM International, M/s Aastha Trading and M/s A.S. International on the basis of forged and fictitious documents viz. forged Import Code (IEC) number, forged identity proof to open bank accounts and forged 213 shipping bills and claimed duty drawbacks to the tune of crores of rupees. Accused Parminder Kumar also forged identity papers of one Sushil Mishra by forging his signatures. Accused customs officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has argued that in the present case the petitioners have been charged with serious offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sanction was duly taken before proceeding against them and in these circumstances the insistence of compliance of the provision of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act can not be accepted. As per him, the actions of the petitioners were completely outside the purview of their official duties and the protection of Section 155 cannot be insisted upon by them. In this connection, learned Senior Counsel as well as other learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of J.L. Batra vs. Dharam Dev and others, reported as 1981 C.L.R. 126, wherein it was held as follows:- "2. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, canvassed that the proceedings cannot be continued on the basis of a complaint against the petitioners as the same are barred by limitation. He says that for such applications, the limitation is provided under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. I have perused this provision, which is in the following terms: "155(1)........ (2) No proceeding oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n or other legal proceedings shall be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done under the Act after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the act or order complained of". 3. The respondents in both the appeals were prosecuted for violation of rules 9, 53, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 66 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable under section 9(b) and (d) of the Act and also under section. 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court found that the prosecution in both the cases was barred by the rule of limitation in section 40 of the Act. The acts complained of in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1969 occurred on 25 July, 1964 and the complaint was filed on 18 May, 1965. In Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1969 the acts complained of occurred on 20 June, 1964 and the complaint was filed on 15 January, 1965. 4. The appellant's contentions are three-fold. First, the section applies only to Government servants. Second, the words "anything done or ordered to be done under this Act" in the section do not mean any act in violation of the provisions of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an act done in bad faith. Sub- section (2) of section 40 does not introduce the test of good faith in relation to act done. Good faith is one of the aspects in section 40(1). The present appeals do not turn on sub-section (1) of section 40. 22. The word 'Act' is defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897. The definition is as follows: "'Act' used with reference to an offence or a civil wrong, shall include a series of acts and words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions." The words "anything done or ordered to be done" under the Act in Section 40(2) of Act were therefore contended by counsel for the respondents to extend to illegal omissions and infraction of the requirements of the statute." Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court agreed with the contention of the respondents and dismissed the appeal of the Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-CBI has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.P. Unnikrishnan vs. Puttiyottil Alikutty, reported as 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 25, wherein their Lordships held that beating of a person within police custody would no....