P (PLP)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑This appeal by special leave, on behalf of Saleh Mohammad, is based on the following facts. On the 19th of September 1964, an Assistant Inspector of the District Anti‑Corruption Bureau, Barisal, obtained a search warrant under section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the Court of Mr. M. L. Bureau, S. D. O., Barisal, and seized 300 bags of bidi leaves kept in the godown of the appellant's firm in Barisal, as well as 59 bags of‑bidi leaves kept in the shop of the appellant's firm; in the same town. Thereafter, this officer submitted a charge‑sheet against the appellant for an alleged offence, falling within section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878; for, being in possession of smuggled Indian bidi leaves. A formal F. I. R., was recorded at the instance of the Assistant Inspector, Mr. Sabiruddin Ahmed, at the Kotwali Barisal, on the 1st of October 1964. In this report, it was state d, inter alia, that information had been received that some Indian strugglers dad dropped 400 bags of Indian bidi leaves and they were stored in the shop and godown of the appellant's firm. These goods had been seized and, though it was‑mentioned therein that offences, falling within section 167(81) of the Sea. Customs‑Act and section," S of the Imports and Exports (Control). Act, 1950, had been committed, a request was made that a case should be registered only under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, against Saleh Mohammad. It appears that the appellant was brought under arrest by the police to the Court of the Magistrate on the 16th October 1964, when a bail application was moved on his behalf. He was granted bail in the sum of Rs. 20,00) with a lawyer's surety in the like amount and one local surety in the same amount. On the 17th October 1964, the seized goods were ordered to be sold in open auction. The accused had apparently applied that they should be handed over to him. The sale was postponed and on the 5th November 1964, the goods were given over to the custody of the accused. A formal charge‑sheet was received in Court on the 8th December 1961, under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. The appellant appears to have moved the Additional District Magistrate, Barisal, for quashment of the proceedings against him. That officer called for a report from the learned Magistrate and the report was submitted along with the record. While the proceedings were still pending there, the appellant moved a revision petition in the High Court at Dacca for the same purpose and the records were, therefore, called by the High Court. On the 17th February 1966, it appears that the bidi leaves were released in favour of the appellant on his executing a Bank guarantee for Rs. 1,00,000. In the High Court, it appears to have been argued that the S. D. O. had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, in the face of the provisions of section‑6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. The learned Judges of the High Court contented themselves with a finding that the S. D. O. had not at all taken cognizance so far, of the offence in question, without examining the legal argument that had been raised. With respect, it seems to us, that this was a somewhat superficial method of dealing with the case. If the whole record had been summoned in the High Court, it would have been clear to the learned Judges. as appears at page 23 of the paper‑book, that on the 16th January 1965, the S. D. O. had submitted a report to the Additional District Magistrate, indicating clearly that he was taking cognizance of the case, which was maintainable under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. Mr. Azizuddin Ahmad has reiterated before us the contention that section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, stood in the way of the prosecution of the appellant, for the offence in question. This section reads as follows, :‑ "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence, punishable under section 5 except upon complaint in writing made,‑ (a) in the case of an offence which is punishable both under this Act or the rules made thereunder and also, whether by confiscation or otherwise; under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, by a Customs Collector or by an order of Customs authorised) In writing in this behalf by a Customs Collector." Mr. Azizuddin Ahmed suggests that, as on the allegations made, this was a case of smuggled goods, imported against a prohibition imposed on the import of Indian bidi leaves, by a notification under section 8 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, an offence had been committed punishable under section 5 of that Act, and as no written complaint of the matter had been made by a duly authorised officer of the Customs, the prosecution was incompetent. The short answer to this contention is that the prosecution has not chosen to mane a charge against the appellant under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act at all. They have confined themselves to a prosecution for an offence, falling within section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, which is a cognizable offence, and for whose prosecution no complaint by a Customs Officer is at all necessary, under the law. Mr. Azizuddin Ahmad found it difficult to controvert this position. It is, therefore, clear that section 6 of the Imports arid Exports (Control) Act, 1950, is not at all attracted to the case and the argument, that the S. D. O. has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter; is entirely misconceived. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.