Crl. Misc. No. M-18775 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-18775 of 2008 Date of Decision : October 23, 2009 Faqir Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Union of India .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. H. S. Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Faqir Singh, who is accused no.1 in impugned criminal complaint (Annexure P-3), filed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short – the Act) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Hoshiarpur, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing the said complaint. In view of short controversy involved in the instant petition, facts of the case are not required to be gone into. Suffice to mention that initially the complainant – Assistant Commissioner of Customs filed complaint against Faqir Singh (petitioner herein), Jasbir Singh and Ranjit Crl. Misc. No. M-18775 of 2008 2 Singh alias Jitta in the Court of learned CJM, Amritsar under Section 135 of the Act. Learned CJM, Amritsar vide judgment dated 05.09.2006 (Annexure P-1), held that the said Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the said complaint and therefore, in view of provision of Section 201 Cr.P.C., ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant for presentation before proper Court at Dasuya or Hoshiarpur, which has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Respondent – Union of India challenged the said judgment (Annexure P-1) by filing Crl. Revn. No.2094 of 2006. The said revision was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2008 of this Court (Annexure P-2). By the same order, the complainant was permitted to present the complaint in the Court of learned CJM, Hoshiarpur within two months from the date of order (Annexure P-2). Pursuant thereto, the complainant filed complaint (Annexure P-3) in the Court of learned CJM, Hoshiarpur. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records, whereas no one has appeared for the respondent inspite of last opportunity. None either appeared for the respondent on the preceding two dates of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the complainant, instead of presenting the complaint which was returned by learned CJM, Amritsar, presented a fresh one in the Court of learned CJM, Hoshiarpur without obtaining fresh sanction under Section 137 of the Act and therefore, learned CJM, Hoshiarpur could not have taken cognizance of impugned criminal complaint (Annexure P-3) without mandatory sanction, as required by Section 137 of the Act. The contention is completely devoid of merit. Complaint before learned CJM, Amritsar was filed after obtaining sanction from Commissioner of Customs, as required under Section 137of the Act. The said sanction was granted for prosecution of the petitioner and his two co-accused for offence under Section 135 of the Act without Crl. Misc. No. M-18775 of 2008 3 specifying the name of the Court, in which the prosecution was to be conducted. Accordingly, the said sanction would be sufficient for prosecution of the petitioner and his co-accused pursuant to impugned complaint (Annexure P-3) in the Court of learned CJM, Hoshiarpur. It is further contended that sanction has not been annexed with the complaint. However, copy of reply on behalf of respondent has already been supplied to counsel for the petitioner and copy of sanction (Annexure R-1) has been annexed with the said reply. Consequently, it cannot be said that the complaint has been filed without requisite sanction. It may be added that fresh complaint (Annexure P-3) had to be filed by the complainant because factum of judgment of learned CJM, Amritsar returning the complaint filed at Amritsar and also factum of order of this Court (Annexure P-2), whereby revision petition filed by Union of India against judgment of learned CJM, Amritsar had been dismissed, had to be mentioned in the complaint to be filed before learned CJM, Hoshiarpur. Even this Court, vide order (Annexure P-2), permitted the complainant to present complaint in the Court of learned CJM, Hoshiarpur and if a new complaint had been presented instead of the previous complaint returned by learned CJM, Amritsar, it would not make the impugned complaint to be illegal in any manner. Cognizance thereof has rightly been taken by the Court of learned CJM, Hoshiarpur. There is no illegality or infirmity in order dated 06.06.2008 passed by learned CJM, Hoshiarpur taking cognizance of the complaint. No ground for quashing of the impugned complaint is made out. The instant petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 23, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE