TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, challenging the rejection of his application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C."), by the Special Court, vide its order dated 09-11-2012. 2. The Police Inspector, CBI/SPE, Bangalore, filed charge sheet against few accused persons including the present petitioner (accused No.1) for the alleged offences mentioned above. 3. The summary of the case of the prosecution before the Special Court is that, the present petitioner, who is accused No.1, was the Superintendent of Customs, EOU-IV A Range, Department of Customs, Bangalore, from the date 05-06-2002 to the date 03-02-2003. The accused No.2 - Sri. D.A. Ganesh was working under him as Inspector of Customs from the date 01-01-2003. They had a duty and responsibility to ensure the bonding of the imported raw materials and examining the exports by 100% Export Oriented Unit coming under their Range. Accused No.4 - M/s. Amisha International represented by Accused No.3 - Sri.D.K. Jain, was one of the 100% Export Oriented Units coming under the EOU-IV Range. The accused No.4 - M/s. Amisha International used to import Raw Mulberry Silk Yarn from Chin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plications under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., seeking their discharge from the case. 5. After hearing both side, the Special Court, by its detailed order dated 09-11-2012, dismissed their applications filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., and held that accused Nos.1 to 3 shall stand trial for the charges levelled against them. Challenging the said order, the accused No.1 has filed this revision petition. 6. The respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is being represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 7. The Special Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - CBI are physically appearing in the Court. 9. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned order passed by the Special Court on the application filed by the accused No.1 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is: Whether the impugned order pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsferred to the Department of Customs and after the present incident, he was again transferred to the Department of Central Excise. Therefore, he comes under the Department of Central Excise, as such, the sanction order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, which is at Ex.P-11, is a valid sanction and cannot be found fault with. 13. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, as on the date of the alleged offences by the petitioner, he was serving in the Customs Department. The sanction order at Ex.P-11 was not issued under Section 137 of the Customs Act, therefore, the cognizance of offence could not have been taken by the Special Court. 14. Undisputedly, the petitioner was serving in the Customs Department, as on the date of the alleged offences. The sanction order which is at Ex.P-11 is issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate, C.R. Building, Queen's Road, Bangalore. Admittedly, the sanction has been accorded under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said fact is clear in the sanction order at Ex.P-11 itself. Section 137 of the Customs Act speaks about the cognizance of o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Those two Departments having separate Commissionerate and the services of the Officers and the officials in those two Departments cannot be inter-changed, the sanction accorded by the Commissioner of Excise under Ex.P-11 is an invalid sanction. 17. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - CBI, in his argument, vehemently submitted that, the petitioner was initially appointed in the Department of Excise, but as on the date of the alleged offences, he was serving as a Superintendent in the Department of Customs. However, as on the date of sanction, he was sent back to the Department of Excise, as such, it was the Excise Commissioner who had the power/authority to remove the petitioner, thus the sanction has been accorded by the Commissioner of Central Excise. To support his contention, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent - CBI, along with a memo dated 29-06-2022, has produced large number of documents, which are the photocopies of their alleged originals and are said to be the part of the Service Records and few Notifications regarding the transfer and placement of the petitioner, on different dates, during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Central Excise, Bangalore-I, under the signature of the Additional Commissioner (P & V), vide Establishment Order dated 27-11-2003, the petitioner was transferred from Bangalore Customs Head quarters to Mysore Central Excise. By the order dated 05-05-2006, again passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate, the petitioner was transferred from Mysore Central Excise to Bangalore Central Excise Zone. Later, on the date 28-02-2011, after attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from the services of the Department of Central Excise only. Thus, as on the date of the sanction order at Ex.P-11, which is dated 26-03-2007, he was serving in the Department of Excise and the Commissioner of Central Excise, who accorded the sanction was the authority who was empowered to remove him from the services. As such, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, the sanctioning order is not passed by the competent authority, is not acceptable. 19. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that, the Department of Excise and Department of Customs have got separate Commissionerate, as such, their internal t....