1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No.105/05, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was rejected.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a customs officer. He cleared certain goods, which were bearing sanction from the Textile Ministry and the goods were dispatched to Dubai and later on it was revealed that the value of the goods when exported from India was inflated.

3. It is also contended that only legal question is involved in this case, there is a bar under Section 155(2) of the Act and the court below has not considered the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju & Anr., 1978 (2) ELT (J 410) (SC) as well as of the Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of West Bengal, 2016 (338) ELT 255 (Cal.) and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2016 (335) ELT 399 (P & H). It is also contended that the facts of this case are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Calcutta High Court as no notice was given under Section 155(2) of the Act and thus, the court below has committed serious illegality in rejecting the application under Section 155(2).

4. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the matter is at the fag end of the trial. Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is not pari materia with Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is also contended that previously the petitioner has moved application under 155(1) of the Act and the same stands rejected upto the High Court. Now the petitioner cannot take recourse to Section 155(2), which is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is also contended that the judgments cited by the petitioner are not applicable to the present case, as the judgments referred to were pronounced taking into consideration the Act as applicable prior to amendment in 1973 and the said judgment would not apply after amendment of Section 40 of the Excise Act.

5. Counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance on Bhappa Singh Vs. Ram Pal Singh & Ors., 1981 (Supp.) SCC 12, B.S. Saha & Ors. Vs. M.S.Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177 and Punjab State Warehousing Corp. V. Bhushan Chander & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.159/2016 decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 29.06.2016).

6. I have considered the arguments advanced before me as well as the rulings cited by the rival parties.

7. In the judgments cited before me, the Apex Court and the High Courts have dealt with the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, it would be appropriate to first refer to the relevant provisions for arriving at a just decision.

8. Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 reads as under:-

“40. Bar of suits and limitation of suits and other legal proceedings.- (1) No suit shall lie against the Central Government or against any officer of the Government in respect of any order passed in good faith or any act in good faith done or ordered to be done under this Act.

(2) No suit, prosecution, or other legal proceeding shall be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done under this 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.”

9. Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as amended with effect from 01.09.1973 reads as under:-

“40. Protection of action taken under the Act.- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government or a State Government for anything which is done, or intended to be done, in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or any rule made there under.

(2) No proceeding, othe