Judgment

KOSHAL, J.:- This appeal by special leave which is directed against a judgment dated May 6, 1970 of the High Court of Calcutta has arisen in the following circumstances. On March 2, 1963, Shri S. N. Banerjee, Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, made an application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, praying that consent be given under S. 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter called the Code) to the prosecution of 14 persons in respect of an offence under Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code as they were guilty of a conspiracy to commit offences under item 81 of the Schedule to S. 167 of the Sea Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and S. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act (the Control Act, for short). The application was granted on March 5, 1963 when the Chief Presidency Magistrate accorded the consent asked for. Four days later, i. e., on March 9, 1963, Shri Banerjee was authorised by the Chief Customs Officer, Calcutta, to prosecute the said persons for the commission of offences under item 81 and S. 5 above-mentioned. On the same date, i.e., March 9, 1963, Shri Banerjee actually filed a complaint against the said 14 persons accusing them of the commission of offences under S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and item 81 as well as S. 5 aforesaid.

After the Presidency Magistrate, who was seized of the case, had examined 43 witnesses, one of the accused challenged his jurisdiction to entertain the complaint through a petition made to the High Court under Ss. 439 and 561A of the Code on the ground that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had no power to give the consent which he did on March 5, 1963, because, till that date, Shri Banerjee was not an officer holding the authorisation envisaged in S. 187-A of the Act. The petition stated that the Chief Presidency Magistrate could not act under the provisions of Sec. 196A of the Code unless an application was made to him in that behalf by a person holding such an authorisation.

The High Court accepted the contention of the petitioner before it with following observations :

"................ The requirement of authorisation under S. 187-A Sea Customs Act .............to enable a Court to take cognizance attaches to sanction under S. 196A, Cr. P. C. As the allegations made or the charge framed is in respect of one offence and sanction granted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate at the instance of S. N. Banerjee, who was not authorised to initiate proceeding is therefore bad in law, as the officer had no authority to apply for sanction."

"............. Obviously, for an offence of the nature charged, there can be only one cognizance and therefore the sanction under S. 120B must also be obtained by an officer mentioned in S. 187A, Sea Customs Act, ..............."

An argument put forward on behalf of Shri Banerjee that S. 196A of the Code did not speak of any authorisation was repelled by the High Court in the following terms :

"Mr. Mitra has also submitted that not only S. 196A does not speak of any authority but that even after sanction, rosecution may not be initiated. This, in our view is oversimplification of the matter. Prosecution has been initiated and therefore this Court has to decide whether the Magistrate is authorised under the law to take cognizance, without sanction under S. 196A being obtained by person competent to initiate proceeding."

2. On behalf of Shri Banerjee, who is the appellant before us, it has been urged that the High Court has erred in interpreting S. 196A of the Code so as to incorporate therein the provision regarding authorisation enacted by S. 187A of the Act, and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find ourselves in complete agreement with him for the reasons which follow.

3. The two sections requiring interpretation by us are reproduced below :

Section 196A of the Code

"No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(1)