Judgment : Criminal Revision Case No.357 of 1994 is directed against the judgment in C.A.No.160 of 1992 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Judge, Vellore, North Arcot District. Criminal Revision Case No.358 of 1994 is directed against the judgment in C.A.No.161 of 1992 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, North Arcot District. Likewise, Criminal Revision Case No.359 of 1992 is directed against the judgment in C.A.No.162 of 1992 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, North Arcot District. All the above three appeals were directed against the judgment of conviction rendered in C.C.No.129 of 1989 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, North Arcot District. There were totally six accused and all of them were tried in one calendar case and convicted as such. Three different sets of appeals came to be filed viz., C.A.No.160 of 1992 by A-1 and A-2. C.A.No.161 of 1992 by A-3 and A-4 and C. A.No.162 of 1992 by A 5. All the three appeals were also dismissed and therefore the respective appellants in each of these appeals have filed three different revisions. In view of one trial against all the accused and though there were three appeals resulting in three revisions before this Court, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the common arguments advanced, I am inclined to dispose of all the three revisions by a common order. 2. The accused were tried for violating Secs.62, 68 and 71 of the Customs Act, 1962 punishable under Sec.35(1)(a) of the said Act. 3. The facts of this case are elaborately set out in the judgment of the trial court and reiterated in the judgment of the appellate court. Therefore, 1 feel it is totally unnecessary to once again reiterate the same in this judgment. However at the same time, 1 am just extracting the sum and substance of the prosecution case so that the dispute between the parties could be disposed of in an understandable manner. 4. In this order, the parties to the three revisions are referred to in the same rank in which they are arrayed in the trial court in C.C.No.129 of 1989. 4. In this order, the parties to the three revisions are referred to in the same rank in which they are arrayed in the trial court in C.C.No.129 of 1989. The first accused is a company of which, the second accused is the managing partner; third accused is the manager; fourth accused is the store in-charge; fifth accused is the Power of Attorney holder of the second accused at Madras and the sixth accused is the Manager of the first accused at Madras. The first accused is dealing in excisable goods. They are importing chemicals for the purpose of the business viz., tannery business. The second accused wrote a letter dated 16.10.1986 to P.W.5 marked in this case as Ex.P.32 original and the xerox copy of which is Ex.P-33, in and by which he brought to the notice of P.W.5 certain illegalities committed by the first accused company. Thereafter, between 17.11.1985 and 22.11.1986 the business place of the first accused company was searched and at that time it was found there were 216 barrels, 24 drums out of which were empty and the remaining contained a water like fluid. It was tested and was found to be materials other than chemicals which was originally imported and stored in the bonded warehouse. The test report for the chemicals while they were imported into India and the test report for the materials that was collected and searched are exhibited in this case. Therefore it is clear that the accused have removed excisable goods from the warehouses contrary to Secs.62, 68 and 71 of the Customs Act, 1962. Sec.62 of the Customs Act speaks about the warehoused goods being subject to the control of the proper officer and a ban for removal of the same without the permission of the proper officer. Sec.68 of the Customs Act, 1962 speaks about the clearance of the warhoused goods for home consumption Sec.71 of the Act provides that warehoused goods shall not be taken out of the warehouse except as provided by this Act. Sec. 135 (1)(a) of the Act is the penal section. Alleging that the accused had removed the goods from 1979 to 1986 which were earlier imported by them, contrary to the above-mentioned provisions of the Customs Act, the complaint came to be filed. Sec. 135 (1)(a) of the Act is the penal section. Alleging that the accused had removed the goods from 1979 to 1986 which were earlier imported by them, contrary to the above-mentioned provisions of the Customs Act, the complaint came to be filed. After obtaining the requisite sanction which is marked in this case as Ex.P-13, the complaint came to be lodged against the accused for the offences under Secs.62, 68 and 71 of the Customs Act read with Sec.135(1)(a) of the Act. In support of the case of the prosecution, as many as eight witnesses were examined and 40 documents were marked besides marking M.O.I and M.O.2 series. On behalf of the defence, no documentary evidence was produced nor any oral evidence was let in. When questioned after recording of the evidence, accused denied the incriminating materials made available against them. The learned trial judge, at the conclusion of the trial and after appreciating the evidence let in before him found all the accused guilty of the offences alleged against them. Thus he sentenced the first and second accused to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each for each of the violations referred to above and the other accused to pay a fine of Rs,3,000 each for each of the violations referred to above. As already referred to by me three different appeals came to be filed and the learned appellate Judge also dismissed the appeals thereby upholding the conviction and sentence rendered by the learned trial judge. Questioning the correctness of the judgment in the three appeals referred to above which in turn confirming the judgment of the trial court, the present three revisions have been filed before this Court. 5. I heard Mr.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in all the three revisions and Mr.P.N.Prakash appearing for Mr.P.Rajamanickam, learned Central Government Public Prosecutor. Questioning the correctness of the judgment in the three appeals referred to above which in turn confirming the judgment of the trial court, the present three revisions have been filed before this Court. 5. I heard Mr.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in all the three revisions and Mr.P.N.Prakash appearing for Mr.P.Rajamanickam, learned Central Government Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel mainly advanced arguments on the following points viz., the sanction order in this case is given by the Additional Collector of Central Excise and he is not a competent person to pass a sanction order under the Customs Act, 1962; even assuming for a moment without admitting that the sanction order was passed by a competent officer yet the sanction order is bad in law on account of the non-application of mind; the authority who had passed the sanction order had also conducted the adjudication proceedings and therefore it can be easily visualised that the sanctioning authority is a prejudiced authority and therefore the order of sanction must be held to be bad on that ground; and lastly the prosecution is hit by the principles of law of limitation. Mr.P.N.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would contend that the Additional Collector of Central Excise, who had passed the sanction order, is the competent authority under the provisions of the Customs Act as well and therefore the sanction order cannot be held to be illegal on that sole ground. As far as the order of sanction on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent would state that the sanction order had been passed after a clear application of mind by the sanctioning authority on the materials available on record. Next the learned counsel would contend that merely because the sanctioning authority is on the adjudicating authority against the accused, that will not necessarily mean that the sanction order is a biased one and that in any event the sanction order being only a first step before launching the prosecution and which by itself cannot be a ground for convicting the accused it cannot be said that the sanction order is bad. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent would state that for economic offences, the period of limitation as provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code would not apply. 6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent would state that for economic offences, the period of limitation as provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code would not apply. 6. I carefully applied my mind to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side. Under Sec.137 of the Customs Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the various provisions of the Customs Act enumerated therein except the previous sanction of the Collector of Customs. “The Collector of Customs” under Sec.2, sub-clause (a) is defined to include an Additional Collector of Customs. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice the Notification No.251-Cus., dated 27.8.1983. I also extract the said Notification in full in this order as under: “Appointment of Officers of Customs: In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government hereby appoints: (a) the officers specified below to be Collectors of Customs within their respective jurisdictions, namely: 1. Director of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, and 2. The Director of Inspection Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi. 3. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, Allahabad, Aurangabad, Bangalore, Belgam, Bhubaneshwar, Bombay-I, Bombay-II, Calcutta, Chandigarh, Cochin, Coimbatore, Delhi, Guntur, Hyderabad Indore, Jaipur, Kanpur, Madras, Madurai, Nagpur, North Uttar Pradesh, Meerut, Patna, Pune, Rajkot, Shillong, Thane, Tiruchirapalli, Vadodara and West Bengal. Note: The jurisdiction of these officers shall extend to the whole of India. (b) The Deputy Collector posted under the Collectors specified in clause 3 to be the Deputy Collectors of Customs within their respective jurisdictions. (c) the Assistant Collectors posted under the Collectors specified in clause 3 to be the Assistant Collectors of Customs within their respective jurisdictions.” A reading of this notification makes it clear that under entry 3 the Collectors of Central Excise, Madras, etc., etc., are notified to be Collector of Customs within their respective jurisdictions. Under Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Collector is defined to include the Additional Collector as well (see the end of this sub-clause). In this case, the sanction order viz., Ex.P-13 had been passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madras. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners on the competency of the officer who passed the sanction order in this case fails. In this case, the sanction order viz., Ex.P-13 had been passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madras. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners on the competency of the officer who passed the sanction order in this case fails. The submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the sanction order smacks off non-application of mind must also fail for the reason that the order discloses that the sanctioning authority perused as many as 28 records which includes all the relevant materials touching upon the complaint and only after that the sanction order had been passed. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind before passing the sanction order. As far as the next submission is concerned, it is no doubt true that the sanctioning authority is the adjudicating authority as well and that does not and will not necessarily invalidate the sanction order. It is not in dispute that the departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution can always proceed simultaneously since the scope of the same are totally different and they operate in different spheres. The mere fact that the Sanctioning Authority had adjudicated upon the issue against the revision petitioners cannot ha necessarily taken to mean that he had applied his mind in a biased manner to the facts of the case before giving the sanction. In any event, the sanction order as already referred to by me, is the first step before launching the prosecution. Beyond that it has no importance to play a role on merits of the case. In other words, merely because there is a valid sanction order that by itself would not be the only ground to sustain a conviction against the accused. The courts, before whom the accused are tried, has to analyse the entire evidence placed before it against the accused and ultimately come to a conclusion whether the accused are guilty or not. In so doing the court is not in any way going to be influenced by the fact that there was a valid sanction order. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners on this ground also. In so doing the court is not in any way going to be influenced by the fact that there was a valid sanction order. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners on this ground also. The last submission advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is on the question of limitation. The period of limitation is provided for in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even at the commencement of the Chapter itself, it is made very clear that under Act.12 of 1974, Chapter XXXVI was made inapplicable to the economic offences. The offences under the Customs Act are certainly economic offences and there cannot be any dispute about it. I am informed by Mr.P.N.Prakash that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in the schedule to Act 12 of 1974, the Customs Act, 1962 is included as one of the enactments and it is shown to be so. Therefore, there is no point in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners on the question of limitation as well. 7. On analysing the entire evidence placed before the court, the trial court found that the accused had removed the goods from the bonded warehouse in contravention of Secs.62, 68 and 71 of the Customs Act, 1962. This conclusion arrived at by the trial court is supported by overwhelming oral and documentary evidence. Appellate court also applying its mind afresh and re-appreciating the entire evidence, concurred with the judgment of the lower court. On going through judgments of the courts below and going through the records and after hearing the counsel on either side, I am unable to find any error of law committed by the courts below in holding the accused guilty of the offences alleged against them. Even on facts there seems to be no mistake at all and the facts made available in this case clinchingly establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would state that the fine amount imposed on each of the accused is very heavy and onerous. However taking into account the nature of the business which the accused is carrying, I do not find that there is any excessive fine in this case. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would state that the fine amount imposed on each of the accused is very heavy and onerous. However taking into account the nature of the business which the accused is carrying, I do not find that there is any excessive fine in this case. Under these circumstances, I find no merits in all the revisions and accordingly they are dismissed.