- (1.) Pursuant to a chargesheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation the petitioner and two others have been arraigned before the 9th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 468/471, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code. One of the three accused could not however be apprehended and as such the case is proceeding against the petitioner and another. Before the learned Magistrate they filed separate petitions praying for their discharge on the common ground that the allegations made against them for what they were worth, made out an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) and in view of Section 6 of the Act prosecution thereunder was not maintainable without a written complaint made by an officer duly authorised by tile Central Government. According to them, the provisions of Section 6 of the Act could not be evaded by resorting to device or camouflage or by misdescribing the offence or putting them under wrong labels. By his order dated January 22, 1985, the learned Magistrate rejected the petitions and thereafter framed the following charges against them :- "First - That you all during the period April, 1973 and November, 1973 at Calcutta and Delhi were party with absconding accused Joginder Singh Narula alias J.S. Narula and others to a criminal conspiracy to do or caused to be done certain illegal acts, viz. to prepare, caused to be prepared spurious documents like I.V.C. particulars, TQR, IVC circular, challan of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi, quota certificate of the office of the JCCI and E, New Delhi, letter and forwarding letters of the said office, to forge or caused to be forged entries and endorsements therein and to use or caused to be used such documents as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe them to be forged in order to obtain import licence from the office of the JCCI and E, Calcutta in favour of a fictitious firm M/s. Associated Auto (India) and thereby to cheat the authorities of the JCCI and E, Calcutta by inducing such authorities to believe that the documents like quota certificate, IVC particulars, Challan, letters, etc. were genuine and upon such belief to issue import licence No. 0240998/C dated 24-11-73 in favour of the fictitious firm M/s. Associated Auto (India) and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 120B, IPC r/w Sections 420, 468/471, IPC. Secondly, that you during September, 1973 and November, 1973 at Calcutta cheated the authorities of JCCI and E, Calcutta by dishonestly inducing them by use of forged document to deliver import licence No. P/E/0240998/C dated 24-11-73 for Rs. 39,169/- to you which was the property of the said JCCI and E, Calcutta and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Thirdly, that you on or about 1st September 1973 at Calcutta fraudulently (or dishonestly) used as genuine or certain documents in the office of the JCCI and E Calcutta to wit, declaration dated 26-6-73 photo copy of I.V.C. particulars, TQR circular No. 5/74 dated 17-8-73, challan No. 159 dated 16-6-73 of the Reserve of Bank of India, quota certificate No. 078774 dated 16-9-74, letter No. V 74 (III) A-27-AM-73-74/FQ/QL/CLA/1232 dated 28-8-73 and V-74 (III) A-27/FQ/QL/CLA/1233 dated 29-8-73 and a covering letter dated 26-6-73 on behalf of a fictitious firm viz. M/s. Associated Auto (India) for having possession of an import licence from the said office and which documents you knew at the time you used it to be forged documents and that you thereby committed offence punishable u/s. 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code."
(2.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner alone has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding as against him.
(3.) Before this Court also Mr. Islam, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in absence of a complaint as required under Section 6 of the Act, the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of offences, and, for that matter to frame the above quoted charges which were primarily and essentially offences under Section 5 of the Act and for which filing of a complaint by a duly authorised officer was statutorily required. Mr. Islam further submitted that the provision of Section 6 of the Act could not be circumvented by changing the garb or label of an offence which squarely fulfilled the requirements of Section 5 of the Act.;