Case law

Calcutta High Court · 14 May 1993

Bijan Halder And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Legal principle

Since offences under the Customs Act are non-cognizable (Section 104(4)) and customs officers act under independent statutory powers rather than as police investigating officers, Section 167, Cr.P.C. does not apply to customs prosecutions, and cognizance taken on a complaint bearing a valid sanction under Section 137(1) is not vitiated by the time elapsed between arrest and filing of the complaint.

Court decision

The revisional application was dismissed. The court held that Section 167, Cr.P.C. is not attracted to a Customs Act prosecution, so cognizance on the complaint was not vitiated; the sanction under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act was valid and consistent with law; and Section 245(3), Cr.P.C. was not yet attracted, the 4-year period running from the accused's appearance on 3 August 1992 after cognizance, not from the 1988 arrest. The decision was against the petitioners and in favour of the customs authorities/State.

Facts

The petitioners, Bijan Halder and another, were arrested by customs officials on 15 September 1988 under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 for an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b)(ii), produced before the learned SDJM, Ranaghat (Nadia), remanded to jail custody and released on bail on 30 September 1988. The goods involved are not identified in the extract. On completion of the customs inquiry/investigation, the Superintendent of Customs filed a complaint before the Magistrate with the previous sanction of the Collector of Customs under Section 137(1), and cognizance was taken on 2 April 1992. The petitioners then moved the Calcutta High Court in revision seeking quashing of the cognizance and their discharge.

Key provisions