JUDGMENT 1. :- Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order. 2. This is a petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the charges framed as also the proceedings of criminal case No. 96/90, pending against the petitioner and some others in the court of C.J.M. No.7. Jaipur City, Jaipur. 3. The relevant facts are that during the intervening night of 26-27 January, 1990, a combined preventive party, consisting of some officers of the B.S.F. and of the Customs Department, apprehended one Ratan Kumar Arora smuggling 168.83 kg. of silver without lawful authority. After having apprehended the said Ratan Kumar Arora, the officers of the Custom Department, including the present petitioner, who at that time happened to be working as Superintendent Customs, and certain officers of the B.S.F., brought him to Jaipur as the trial court was located at Jaipur. A police custody remand of the said Ratan Kumar Arora was obtained from the Special Judge (Economic Offences) Raj. Jaipur, during that night and on the grant of such remand in late hours of the night the officers brought Ratan Kumar Arora, accused, to the office of the Customs Department to detain him for the night. Devendra Singh, Customs Inspector, left Ratan Kumar, accused, in the custody of Mahendra Singh and Sohan Lal, Constables, the two co-accused in the present case. He allegedly informed the present petitioner of having left Ratan Kumar in the custody of the said two constables. Ratan Kumar escaped from the lawful custody of the constables during that night. Devendra Singh, Customs Inspector, reported the matter to police whereupon a case for commission of the offences Under sections 227, 223 and 224 Indian Penal Code was registered against Ratan Kumar Arora and aforesaid two constables. The present petitioner was not arrayed as an accused. However, after investigation a police report was submitted for offence under Section 224 Indian Penal Code as against Ratan Kumar Arora, accused, and for offence under Section 223 r.w. Section 120-B Indian Penal Code as against the present petitioner and the aforesaid two constables Sohan Lal and Mahendra Singh. Since Ratan Kumar had not been apprehended and was absconding, the report had been submitted against him under Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the present petitioner and Mahendra Singh and Sohan Lal, constables. 4. Since Ratan Kumar had not been apprehended and was absconding, the report had been submitted against him under Section 299 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the present petitioner and Mahendra Singh and Sohan Lal, constables. 4. On 22.12.90 the present petitioner moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge wherein he stated that no cognizance of the offence under Section 223 r.w. Section 224 Indian Penal Code was not prima facie disclosed from the police report and the material, submitted therewith and, therefore, he should be discharged under Section 258 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial court held that in so far as the question of applicability of the provisions of Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code were concerned, he cannot reconsider such a plea as he had already taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner as well. For the other objection as raised by the petitioner the learned Judge held that in the statements of Devendra Singh, Customs Inspector, and other witnesses there was prima facie sufficient evidence to put the petitioner on trial for offence under Section 224 r.w. Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. Holding thus the learned Sessions Judge dismissed petitioner's application under Section 258 Criminal Procedure Code. Hence this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Mr. M.S. Raghav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has advanced two fold arguments before me. It was urged that since the petitioner is an officer, appointed by the Central Government under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962. (the Act), he cannot be prosecuted without a sanction from the Central Government. In this behalf Mr. Raghav referred to the provisions, contained in Section 137 of the Act as also 197 Criminal Procedure Code. I do not find any force in this argument. 6. Section 137 of the Act stands attracted when offences punishable Under sections 132, 133, 134 and 135 of the Act is alleged to have been committed by an officer of the Customs Department. The offence, punishable under Section 223 Indian Penal Code, is not an offence, punishable under Section 132, 133, 134 and 135 of the Act. Infact those offences make the persons committing offence against the Act itself liable to punishment. In so far as an offence, committed by a Customs Officer, as defined in Section 2 of the Act, is concerned Sub-sec. Infact those offences make the persons committing offence against the Act itself liable to punishment. In so far as an offence, committed by a Customs Officer, as defined in Section 2 of the Act, is concerned Sub-sec. (2) of Section 137 of the Act deals with the subject. Sub-Sec.(2) of Section 137 of the Act refers to the offences committed by the officers of Customs Department, which are punishable under Section 136 of the Act. The offence contemplated under Section 136 of the Act does not include an offence of the nature contemplated by Section 223 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the provisions, contained in Section 137, are not applicable to the present case. In so far as the application of the provisions, contained in Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code, is concerned it is not disputed that the petitioner is an officer' of Customs, appointed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, constituted under Central Government Board of Revenue Act, 1963. He is, therefore, not an officer having been appointed by the Central Govt. though he had been appointed in relation to the affairs of such Government. Since the petitioner is not an officer of the Custom, appointed by the Central Govt., the provisions of Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code do not stand attracted in his case. 7. However, I find substance in another argument of Mr. Raghav that there was no evidence against the present petitioner for framing charges under Section 223 Indian Penal Code against him. The only evidence collected in the course of investigation of the case was that Ratan Kumar Arora, accused, had been brought to Jaipur to be produced before the Special Judge (Economic Offences) and that the Constables of the Department had taken him to the residence of the Special Judge for obtaining his remand to police custody. The informant Devender Singh, Customs Inspector, has stated in his statement that when the remand of Ratan Kumar had been obtained and he had been brought to the office of the Customs, he was left in the custody of Mahendra Singh and Sohan, the two co-accused in the case. He has clearly stated in his statement, recorded under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, that the present petitioner was not there at the time when Ratan Kumar Arora had been left in the custody of those two constables. He has clearly stated in his statement, recorded under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, that the present petitioner was not there at the time when Ratan Kumar Arora had been left in the custody of those two constables. The witness has further stated that when it was known that Ratan Kumar Arora had escaped from the lawful custody of the constables, the petitioner as also other officers of the Customs had made a vigorous search for the said Ratan Kumar Arora, who had escaped from the lawful custody of the Constables. Merely because the petitioner happened to be the over all in-charge of the case, it can not be inferred that he had conspired with the two constables to let Ratan Kumar Arora, accused, escape from the lawful custody. The very conduct of the petitioner in making a hectic search for Ratan Kumar Arora, after knowing about his escape from lawful custody, shows that he was not a co-conspirator in the escape of the said accused from lawful custody. That was why Devender Singh, Customs Inspector, had not attributed any act to the present petitioner in the escape of Ratan Kumar Arora from lawful custody. In view of such evidence on the record of the case and also keeping in mind that the petitioner was the person, who had brought Ratan Kumar Arora from the Pakistan border to Jaipur and after his escape, he had actively participated in the search of Ratan Kumar Arora, the charges framed against him are found baseless and groundless and deserve to be quashed. 8. In view of the above, the charges framed against the present petitioner and criminal proceedings in case No. 96/90, pending against him before the learned Special Judge (Economic Offences) are hereby quashed. The petition stands allowed.Petition Allowed. *******