Special Judge may take cognizance on private complaint.

petition by Sadagopachari and Raghupathi, accused 4 and 6 in C C No. 14 of 1964, on the file of the Special Judge, Madras, to revise the order of the Special Judge, Madras, to revise the Order of the Special Judge in Criminal M.P. No. 32 of 1965 in the said case overruling their preliminary objections with regard to the competency of the Collector of Customs to file the complaint in this case and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the same.

The difficulty that has arisen in this case is not likely to occur in future after the enactment of the new Customs Act (LII of 1962.) The Collector of Customs has pre-ferred a complaint against the petitioners and others under section 120-B read with sections 161, 165, 165-A, Indian Penal Code. Section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947); section 5(2) of the said Act read with section 109, Indian Penal Code and section 167 clauses (75), (76) and (81) of the Sea Customs Act read with sections 19 and 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act apart from other specific offences against the individual accused. The Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) provides for special investigation by senior Police Officers for offences under the said Act and specific offences such as bribery under the Indian Penal Code subject to the prosecution obtaining previous sanction. Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (XXV of 1946) provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the offences or classes of offences committed in connection with matters concerning departments of the Central Government which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. Such investigation was done in this case and normally, one would expect the Special Police to file the charge sheet in this case. But under section 187-A of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence relating to smuggling of goods punishable under item 81 of the Schedule to section 167 of the said Act except upon compliant in writing made by the Chief Customs Officer or any other officer of Customs not lower in rank that an Assistant Collector of Cstoms. Thus in respect of the main acts of smuggling punishable under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, the Collector of Customs had to prefer the complaint and for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Special Police who investigated the case had to file the charge sheet. Under section 137 of the Customs Act (LII of 1962) dealing with cognizance of offences, the Collector of Customs need only give sanction for the prosecution relating to certain offences under the Customs Act. Hence, the Special Police could file charge sheet in future for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and other Acts after obtaining the sanction of the Collector in respect of offences under Customs Act requiring such sanction.

The only question to be considered in this case as regards the first objection raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is whether the Special Judge can take cognizance of all the offences charged against the petitioners and others on private complaint of the Collector of Customs. Under section 8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, a Special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial, and in trying the accused persons, he shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. Thus the powers of the Special Judge to take cognizance of the offences are wide and they are not confined to the taking of cognizance on police charge sheet. The cognizance of offences can be taken by the Special Judge on private complaint.

In Parasnath v. State1, it has been held that section 8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act gives clear authority to the Special Judge to take cognizance of an offence and no li