ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. versus D. D. BHARGAVA

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 30-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO. Lm. 
l'. 
D. D. BHARGAVA 
August 30, 1967 
IM. HIDAYATULLAH, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JI.] 
Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947), ss. 5 and 6-
Section 6 requiring complaint under s. 5 to be filed by authorised 
officer in writing-Such officer whether required to apply his mind 
to the relevant materials before filing complaint-Principles relat-
ing to grant of sanction whether applicable. 
The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports New Delhi 
filed a complaint against the appellant under s. 5 read withs. 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 refer-
red to in the . report of the Spec id Police Estabnshment in connec-
tion with the case and had not verified personally all the Cletail& 
mentioned in the report. The appellant filed an application request-
ing the Magistrate not to take cognizance of the case as the com-
plaint did not satisfy the requirements of s. 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 con-
tended on behalf of the appellant that as in the case of sanction for 
prosecution of cert~in offences, before a court can take cognizance 
of an offence punishable under s. ·5 on the basis of a complaint under 
s. 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 s. 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 limi-
tation contained in s.6, is only regarding the particular officer who 
could file a complaint and, when once he satisfies those require-
ments, the bar is removed to the taking of cognizance by a court, on 
a complaint made in accordance with s. 6. [398F-G] 
In the present case the complaint had been made by an autho-
rised officer in writing. The requirements of s. 6 were therefore 
batisfied and the Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the offence. 
[399B-C] 
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King, L.R. 75 I.A. 30; 
Madan Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 637 641 and 
?aswant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1958] S.C.R. 762, 765, referred to. 
S.A. Venkataraman v. The State, [1958] S.C.R. 1037, 1041, ap-
plied. 
Feroz Din v. The State of West Benoa!, (1960] 2 S.C.R 319, 330, 
distinguished. 
. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 
1967. 
. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 21, 1966 of the Delhj 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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
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 
s. 5 read with s. 6 of the Imports & Exports (Contr\Jl) 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 s. 120B, read with s. 420, I.P.C., and s. 5 of the Act. The 
complaint, fairly elaborately, sets out the various matters contain-
ing allegations of violations of the conditions of the import licen-
ces g

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.