Sanction of Central Government for prosecution is a must.

This is a criminal revision petition filed against the order of discharge made by the learned District Magistrate (Judicial) of South Arcot at Cuddalore in C.C. No. 399 of 1950.

The facts are:-One Sakuntala Bai travelled in a bus from Pondicherry to Cuddalore on 17th April, 1950. It is stated that she was on her way to her husband’s house. The bus was stopped at Reddichavadi Customs Chouki for inspection by the customs authorities. This Sakuntala Bai states that she was examined by the woman customs guard and was sent out and that while she was about to get back into the bus she was called by the accused Venkatakrishna Reddi the Inspector of the Reddichavadi Customs Chouki and asked to remove the gold bangles and the gold golusu worn by her and that she refused to do so. Thereupon the accused is said to have abused her and also assaulted her by giving a slap on her face and a few blows on her back with his leather belt and that he forcibly removed the gold bangles and golusu from her hands and detained her in the Chouki till 8-15 p.m. until she paid a fine of Rs. 1,000. On the foot of that she filed a complaint against the accused on 26th April, 1950. This case was filed before the Stationary SubMagistrate of Cuddalore under sections 355, 323 and 342, Indian Penal Code. in C.C. No. 1414 of 1950 and the learned Sub-Magistrate after examining the complainant on oath took the complaint on file under section 355, Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused.

Then on a petition (CM.P. No. 24 of 1950) filed by the accused the case was transferred to the file of the District Magistrate and numbered as C.C. No. 399 of 1950. I may point out here that the complainant sought to corroborate her case by a medical certificate also.

The accused took a preliminary objection under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code and also under section 198, Sea Customs Act. His case was that as Inspector of Customs attached to the Central Government appointed under section 3 of the Sea Customs and Land Customs Act, he was a public servant not removable from office even by the Local Government and that to prosecute such an officer for an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties sanction will have to be obtained from the Central Government and that under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, the Court could not take cognizance of the offence against him except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The contention under section 198 of the Sea Customs Act is that

"no proceeding other than a suit shall be commenced against any person for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of the said Act without giving to such person a month’s previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof; or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause."

There is no dispute in this case that this procedure was not followed in the sense that notice was not given though the complaint was filed within three months of the accrual of such cause. These contentions found favour with the learned District Magistrate (Judicial) of Cuddalore and the complaint was dismissed and the accused was discharged.

The two points which fall for consideration before me are whether section 198, Sea Customs Act, and section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, apply to this case.

Point 1.-So far as section 198, Sea Customs Act, is concerned the learned District Magistrate was not at all justified in holding that that section applied to the facts of this case. The reasoning of the learned Judicial District Magistrate is that the accused got wild and assaulted the lady as she refused to remove the jewels from her hands and surrender them and that therefore that even if the accused had assaulted the complainant it was an act done or purporting to be done by the accused in the discharge of his official duties. I am astonished that such an argument should have found