ORDER

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.5 in C.C.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the learned II-Additional District Judge, II-Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, who is facing the prosecution for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 420 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, filed this petition to quash the proceedings.

2. Case of the prosecution as per the final report:

The petitioner is the appraiser in the customs department. He and other officer is duty bound to ascertain the net weight of the imported items in order to arrive applicability of the customs notification No.147/2003 to claim the exemption from making the payment of anti-dumping duty. A1 imported 1,40,000 pieces of 3m x 12.5 mm Spectra brand steel measuring tapes and 1,00,000 pieces of

3m x16mm Spectra brand steel measuring tapes in 600 cartons from M/s.Shangglu City Huaxin Electronic Measuring Tools Co., Ltd., China, vide Bill of Lading No.8715SHA04245 dated 23.07.2008. The gross weight of the said consignment was shown as 9850 kgs, whereas net weight was not declared in the said Bill of Lading. A2 the representative of M/s.Green Port Shipping Agency moved for customs clearance on 13.08.2008. A3 and A4 examined the same and made the first check of consignment as per the customs procedures. It is the allegation that without ascertaining the net weight of the imported items to ascertain the applicability of anti-dumping duty as per the customs procedure, they failed to appraise the same. Therefore, there was an evasion of anti-dumping duty to the tune of Rs.19,41,770/-. Thereafter, DRI conducted investigation and found that there is some discrepancy in the weight ascertained by the Shed Examination Officers and found that there is an evasion of Rs.19,41,770/- under the caption of Anti-Dumping duty. Hence, the prosecution agency filed the case and conducted investigation and filed the final report in C.C.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the II-Additional District Court for CBI cases, Madurai.

3. The petitioner filed the quash petition earlier in Crl.O.P.No.7444 of 2016 and that the same was dismissed on 16.02.2018. Even though the said petition was dismissed, the petitioner filed this second petition on the ground that he did not raise the following question in the earlier quash petition:

“Whether the prosecution against the petitioner maintainable without obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C or not?”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the act of the petitioner has nexus with the discharge of public duty and hence the prosecution against the petitioner without obtaining sanction is not maintainable. He made the following submissions:

4.1. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is entirely different from the language of Section 197 Cr.P.C. Section 197 Cr.P.C is coined with the words 'is' as well as 'was' and hence even in the case of the superannuation of the public servant, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is required to prosecute various offences stated in the IPC. In this case, the prosecution filed the final report for the offences under Section 120 B r/w 420 IPC. To substantiate the same, he placed reliance of the judgement reported in Crl.A.No.593 of

2021 [Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan].

4.2. He also submitted that on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 SC 44 [Matajog Dobey v. H.C.Bhari], the question of sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

4.3. The investigating agency originally registered one FIR and after completion of the investigation, they filed 9 final reports and the said 9 final reports were taken on file in various CC numbers including C.C.No.129 of 2013 on the file of the Special Court for CBI cases. In C.C.No.6 of 2013 for a similar appraiser, the investigating agency obtained sanction, but in this case, where the petitioner also is an appraiser, sanction has not been obtained and hence, the investigating agency acte