The validity of the sanction for prosecution depends on the presence of relevant material and the requirement that the sanction order must be passed on such material.

( 1 ) THE petitioner by this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) seeks quashing of criminal proceedings which emanated from a complaint filed by the Air Customs Officer-respondent under Sections 132 and 132 (l) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act ). It is the case of the petitioner that sanction for prosecution has been given without the Sanctioning Authority applying its mind. The petitioner has also called into question the competency of the Additional Collector of Customs to accord sanction for prosecution.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that a complaint was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the Air Customs Officer, Indira Gandhi International Airport, to the effect that the Additional Collectors of Customs, Indira Gandhi International Airport, has accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner herein by virtue of the powers vested under Section 137 (1) of the Act which has authorised the complainant-respondent to file the complaint. It was alleged in the complaint that on the night of 10-11. 9. 1988, while checking of passengers bound for Bankok by Thai Airways flight No. TG-915 was in progress in the departure hall at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, two officers of the Preventive Section were keeping surveillance on the checking-in-passengers behind the customs counter. Around 00. 05 hours, they noticed the accused hovering round the counter where customs clearance of aforesaid TG-915 flight was going on. Upon being confronted, the accused replied that he had come to receive someone in the arrival hall and had drifted to the departure hall incidentally to meet his old colleague. The accused, who was working as Inspector, Central Excise, Delhi, was earlier posed at Indira Gandhi International Airport as Air Customs Officer. After sometime, the accused was seen moving towards the Security Gate No. 10 where the security checking of Bankok bound passengers was in progress. Suspicion having been aroused of the Preventive Officers, they challenged the accused with whom they found a boarding card, and the accused had purportedly cleared the security check at Gate No. 10 as passenger. Uponcheckingatthecustomscounter,itwas found that the accused had not taken customs clearance and his name was not struck off the passenger manifest which was indicative that the customs clearance had not been taken. It appeared at that time that the accused had misused his status of a Customs Officer and stamped his boarding card fraudulently without actually reporting at the concerned customs counter. The accused was asked whether he was carrying any foreign/indian currency, upon which he replied that he had FTS of 500 US dollars and 20 dollars purchased from the Bank at the Airport. A personal search was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses which resulted in the recovery of foreign and Indian currency equivalent to Rs. 96,664. 45 and upon the accused not being able to satisfactorily explain, the same was seized under Section 110 of the Act and Panchnama drawn. It was the case of the complainant- respondent that in a statement under Section 108 of the Act, the accused admitted the aforesaid recovery seizure and other incriminating facts. The action of the accused had resulted in his having committed an offence punishable under Section 132 of the Act. It was stated that the accused knowingly and fraudulently evaded or attempted to evade all the prohibitions imposed on the export of the aforesaid currency under Section 13 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short fera ) read with Section 11 of the Act, as made applicable by Section 67 of the FERA. Thus the accused had committed an offence under Section 135 (1 ) (a) of the Act.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, as stated, attacked the sanction on the ground of non-application of mind as also lack of jurisdiction. It was argued by