iminal Appeal No 41 of 1967
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 21 1966 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision Application No 273 D of 1965
A K Sen Veda Vyasa K B Mehta and H L Anand for the appellant
H R Khanna and R N Sachthey for the respondent
394 395 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam J
The sole point which arises for considera tion in this appeal by special leave directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi dated November 21 1966 is about the validity of the complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports New Delhi the respondent herein under section 5 read with section 6 of the Imports  Exports Control Act 1947 Act XVIII of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act
Section 6 of the Act relating to cognizance of offences is as follows 6
No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 5 except upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order and no Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any such offence
The respondent filed a complaint on December 31 1962 be fore the First Class Magistrate
Delhi
alleging that the appellants before us and four others had committed offences punishable under section 120B read with section 420 IPC and section 5 of the Act
The complaint fairly elaborately sets out the various matters containing allegations of violations of the conditions of the import licences granted to the appellants
It may also be stated at this stage that the Chief Commissioner Delhi by his order dated December 12 1962 had given his consent to the initiation of proceedings in the prosecution of the appellant and four others mentioned therein under sub section
2 of section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter called the Code inasmuch as the complaint also involved an offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120B PC to commit a non cognizable offence
So far as this consent is concerned it is not the subject of any attack before us
The complainant was examined as PW 3
He has stated in his chief examination that he filed the complaint in question after satisfying himself about the prima facie commission of the offences mentioned in the complaint
In cross examination he has referred to the fact that he came to know about the case when he received a report from the Special Police Establishment at the end of September 1962
When a question was put as to whether he complainant would produce the said report objection was raised by the Public Prosecutor that the said report was only the opinion of a police officer and was not admissible in law
This objection has been upheld by the Magistrate
The complainant has further stated that he visited the Special Police Establishment Office for the first time in connection with the case only in September or October 1963 whereas the complaint had been filed on December 31 1962
He has also stated that he has not seen any of the documents referred to in the police report between the date when he received the report and the date when the com plaint was filed
He has further stated that on receipt of summons 396 from the Court he visited the Special Police Establishment Office to see the documents for satisfying himself that the complaint which he had filed was based on absolute facts
His further answers were to the effect that when he filed the complaint he had not verified personally all the details mentioned in the police report and that the Chief Commissioner s permission to initiate proceedings had already been obtained when he signed the complaint on December 29 1962
But he has also stated that he had asked the Special Police Establishment to draft the com plaint
The appellant tiled an application on September 26 1964 before the Trial Magistrate stating that in view of the above answers given by the complainant no cognizance should be taken on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent Shri Bhargava the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
According to the appellant section 6 of the Act is mandatory in character and enjoins that the entire facts and materials connected with the allegations which form the subject of the charge or charges must be placed before the competent authority and the complaint is to be initiated by the appropriate authority only after due consideration of the entire materials
In this case according to the appellant the answers given by the Officer as PW3 coupled with the non production of the Special Police Establishment s report will clearly show that the facts constituting the offence were not placed before him and it is also clear that the complainant has not filed the complaint after verifying and satisfying himself about the facts mentioned in the police report
As to what is contained in the police report is a matter of pure conjecture inasmuch as it has not been produced before the Court
The Magistrate rejected this application and his order was also confirmed in revision by the Additional Sessions  Judge Delhi
Aggrieved by these orders of the Subordinate Courts the appellant moved the Delhi High Court for redress
The learned Judge of the Delhi High Court in his order under appeal has confirmed the orders of the Subordinate Courts
Mr AK Sen learned counsel for the appellants has raised the same contentions
which did not find favour with the High Court
According to the learned counsel section 6 of the Act is mandatory and before a Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 5 the prosecution will have to establish that the facts constituting the offence were placed before the complainant and that after a proper consideration of those facts the complaint has been instituted in this case by PW3
Counsel also pointed out that the prosecution could have very well placed
before the Court the report of the Special Police Establishment to show that the necessary facts which formed the basis of the complaint were placed before the complainant but in this case the prosecution had declined to produce the report as will be 397 seen from the objections raised by it
Therefore under those circumstances an inference will have to be drawn against the prosecution and the normal presumption should be that the evidence which could be but had not been produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it which in this case is the prosecution
Counsel also pointed out that in this case the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the filing of a complaint by PW 3 is merely a mechanical act which view is not justified in law
In fact we understood Mr Sen to contend that there is no distinction in principle between provisions in statutes providing for the taking of cognizance of offences only on the previous sanction of any particular authority and provisions providing simpliciter for a complaint being filed by a particular person or officer
Mr H R Khanna learned counsel for the respondent com plainant has pointed out that the principles enunciated by the appellants  counsel do not apply to cases where the statute as in this case simpliciter provides for a complaint being made by the particular officer mentioned therein
In such cases counsel points out the Court has only to see whether the person or authority mentioned therein has initiated the proceedings by filing a com plaint in the manner referred to in the particular provision
In this case counsel points out there is no controversy that the respondent is an officer authorized by the Central Government to file complaints under section 5 of the Act
in this connection counsel referred us to the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure some of which provide for cognizance being taken of offences only on a complaint made by a person or officer mentioned therein and in other cases where taking cognizance of offences is prohibited except on a sanction given by an authority eg sections 195 197 198 etc
Having due regard to the provisions contained in section 6 of the Act counsel pointed out there is no infirmity in the complaint filed by the respondent
The principle that the burden of proving that a requisit sanction has been obtained rests on the prosecution and that such burden involves proof that the sanctioning authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based facts which might appear on the fact of the sanction or might be proved by extraneous evidence
is now well settled by the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King1
There their Lordships were considering cl 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order 1943 as amended to the effect No prosecution for the contravention of any of the provisions of this Order shall be instituted without the previous sanction of the Provincial Government or of such 1 LR 75 IA 30
SCI 12 398 officer of the Provincial Government not below the rank of District Magistrate as the Provincial Government may by general or special order in writing authorize in this behalf
 The Judicial Committee has held that in order to hold that there is a compliance with the provisions of cl 23 it must be proved that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offences charged because the sanction to prosecute is an important matter as it constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution and the Government have an absolute discretion to grant or withhold that sanction
The Judicial Committee has also emphasized that the Government cannot also adequately discharge the obligation of deciding whether to give or withhold the sanction without a knowledge of the facts of the case as sanction has to be given to a prosecution for the contravention of any of the provisions of the Order
These principles laid down by the Judicial Committee have also been approved by decisions of this Court See Madan Mohan vs State of Uttar Pradesh1 Jawsant Singh vs State of Punjab2 and Feroz Din vs The State of West Bengal3
In Jaswant Singh s Case2 this Court dealing with a case of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 after referring to the decision of the Judicial Committee has observed that the sanction under the said Act is not intended to be nor is an automatic formality and it is essential that the provisions in regard to sanction should be observed with complete strictness as the object of the provision for sanction is that the authority giving the sanction should be able to consider for itself the various facts alleged before it comes to the conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden
We are not inclined to accept the contentions of Mr Sen that the principles laid down in these decisions which relate to the question of sanction
have any application to the filing of complaints under section 6 of the Act
Section 6 only insists that the complaint is to be in writing and that it must be made by an officer authorised in that behalf
The complaint in this case has been made by the respondent in writing and that he is an authorised officer in this behalf has not been challenged
The limitation contained in section 6 is only regarding the particular officer who could file a complaint and when once he satisfies those requirements the bar is removed to the taking of cognizance by a Court on a complaint made in accordance with section 6
In this connection it is desirable to bear in mind the observations of this Court made in section A Venkataraman vs The State4
After considering the scheme of the Code this Court observed In construing the provisions of a statute it is essential for a court in the first instance to give effect to the 1 AIR 1954 SC 637 641
2   765
3   330
4  1041 399 natural meaning of the words used therein if those words are clear enough
It is only in the case of any ambiguity that a court is entitled to ascertain the intention of the legislature by construing the provisions of the statute as a whole and taking into consideration other matters and the circumstances which led to the enactment of the statute
 Going by the plain words contained in section 6 of the Act we are satisfied that the complaint in this case filed by the respondent can be considered to be in conformity with the provisions contained therein
But Mr Sen relied upon the decision of this Court in Feroz Din s Case1 in support of his argument that cases in which sanction is necessary to enable a Court to take cognizance of offences and cases in which a mere complaint is to be filed by a public officer without the requirement of any sanction have been treated on a par and the same tests for finding out the legality of a complaint in the former class of cases have been applied to the latter class of cases also
It is therefore necessary to consider the exact scope of that decision
In that decision this Court was considering a complaint filed by a management under sections 24 and 27 of the 
The management company in that case filed a complaint with the sanction of the Government
The provision regarding sanction is contained in section 341 of the  which is as follows No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act  save on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government One of the contentions raised by the appellants therein based upon the decision of the Judicial Committee in Morarka s Case2 was that the sanction given by the Government of West Bengal to file the complaint against them was bad as it had been granted without reference to the facts constituting the offence
This Court after referring to the said decision rejected the contention of the appellants and held that the entire facts connected with the offence had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the Government gave the sanction on consideration of those facts and that those circumstances fully satisfied the requirements of prior sanction  as laid down by the Judicial Committee
It will be seen by a reference to section 341 of the  extracted above that a complaint can be filed by the appropriate Government itself or it can be filed under the authority of the appropriate Government
In the decision before this Court the Government had not filed the complaint but an the other hand the management company obtained the sanction of the Government of West Bengal to file the complaint
That is why this Court 1   330
2 LR 75 IA 30
400 had occasion to consider the validity of the sanction regarding which an attack was made by the appellants
This Court in that case nevertheless apply if the Government itself had filed the complaint as it was entitled to under section 341
Therefore the observations made in that case regarding the validity of sanction  will have to be confined to the facts of that case
No such question arise with regard to the matter before us
The section with which we are concerned does not contain any such restriction regarding the obtaining of sanction on the basis of which alone a complaint can be filed to enable a Court to take cognizance of an offence
The result is the view of the High Court that the complaint filed by the respondent on December 31 1962 satisfies the requirements of section 6 of the Act is perfectly correct
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed
GC Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports  Exports New Delhi filed a complaint against the appellant under section 5 read with section 6 of the Imports  Exports Control Act 1947 before the Magistrate First Class Delhi
In the witness box the complainant admitted that when he filed the complaint he had not seen any of the documents referred to in the report of the Special Police Establishment in connection with the case and had not verified personally all the detail mentioned in the report
The appellant filed an application requesting the Magistrate not to take cognizance of the case as the complaint did not satisfy the requirements of section 6 of the Act
The plea was rejected by the Magistrate the Sessions Judge and the High Court
An appeal to this Court was filed by special leave
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that as in the case of sanction for prosecution of certain offences before a court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 5 on the basis of a complaint under section 6 the prosecution will have to establish that the facts constituting the offence were placed before the complainant and that the latter on a proper consideration of these facts has filed the complaint
Held i The principles applicable to cases requiring sanc tion have no application to filing of complaints under section 6 of the Act
Section 6 only insists that the complaint is to be in writing and that it must be made by an officer authorised in that behalf
The limitation contained in s6 is only regarding the particular officer who could file a complaint and when once he satisfies those requirements the bar is removed to the taking of cognizance by a court on a complaint made in accordance with section 6
398F G In the present case the complaint had been made by an autho rised officer in writing
The requirements of section 6 were therefore satisfied and the Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the offence
399B C Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King LR 75 IA 30 Madan Mohan vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 637 641 and Jaswant Singh vs State of Punjab   765 referred to
SA Venkataraman vs The State  1041 applied
Feroz Din vs The State of West Bengal   330distinguished