ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No.105/05, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was rejected. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a customs officer. He cleared certain goods, which were bearing sanction from the Textile Ministry and the goods were dispatched to Dubai and later on it was revealed that the value of the goods when exported from India was inflated. 3. It is also contended that only legal question is involved in this case, there is a bar under Section 155(2) of the Act and the court below has not considered the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju & Anr., 1978 (2) ELT (J 410) (SC) as well as of the Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of West Bengal, 2016 (338) ELT 255 (Cal.) and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2016 (335) ELT 399 (P & H). It is also contended that the facts of this case are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Calcutta High Court as no notice was given under Section 155(2) of the Act and thus, the court below has committed serious illegality in rejecting the application under Section 155(2). 4. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the matter is at the fag end of the trial. Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is not pari materia with Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is also contended that previously the petitioner has moved application under 155(1) of the Act and the same stands rejected upto the High Court. Now the petitioner cannot take recourse to Section 155(2), which is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is also contended that the judgments cited by the petitioner are not applicable to the present case, as the judgments referred to were pronounced taking into consideration the Act as applicable prior to amendment in 1973 and the said judgment would not apply after amendment of Section 40 of the Excise Act. 5. It is also contended that the judgments cited by the petitioner are not applicable to the present case, as the judgments referred to were pronounced taking into consideration the Act as applicable prior to amendment in 1973 and the said judgment would not apply after amendment of Section 40 of the Excise Act. 5. Counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance on Bhappa Singh Vs. Ram Pal Singh & Ors., 1981 (Supp.) SCC 12, B.S. Saha & Ors. Vs. M.S.Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177 and Punjab State Warehousing Corp. V. Bhushan Chander & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.159/2016 decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 29.06.2016). 6. I have considered the arguments advanced before me as well as the rulings cited by the rival parties. 7. In the judgments cited before me, the Apex Court and the High Courts have dealt with the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, it would be appropriate to first refer to the relevant provisions for arriving at a just decision. 8. Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 reads as under:- “40. Bar of suits and limitation of suits and other legal proceedings.- (1) No suit shall lie against the Central Government or against any officer of the Government in respect of any order passed in good faith or any act in good faith done or ordered to be done under this Act. (2) No suit, prosecution, or other legal proceeding shall be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done under this Act after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the act or order complained of.” 9. Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as amended with effect from 01.09.1973 reads as under:- “40. Protection of action taken under the Act.- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government or a State Government for anything which is done, or intended to be done, in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or any rule made there under. Protection of action taken under the Act.- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government or a State Government for anything which is done, or intended to be done, in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or any rule made there under. (2) No proceeding, other than a suit, shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government or a State Government for anything done or purported to have been done in pursuance of this Act or any rule made there under, without giving the Central Government or such officer a month's previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause.” 10. Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under:- “155. Protection of action taken under the Act.- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done, or intended to be done, in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or the rules or regulations. (2) No proceeding, other than a suit, shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act without giving the Central Government or such officer a month's previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof, or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause.” 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju & Anr. (supra) was dealing with Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the limitation as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 40 would be applicable as no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings can be instituted after the expiry of six months from the accrual of the cause of action. 12. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) and the Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of West Bengal (supra) placing reliance on Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju & Anr. 12. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) and the Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of West Bengal (supra) placing reliance on Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju & Anr. (supra) have concluded that sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 is pari material with sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and therefore, the proceeding after the expiry of the term provided under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not valid. 13. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R. Raju & Anr. (supra) was dealing with the unamended provisions, which existed prior to 1973. There has been a drastic change in the provision, as quoted above. Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended after 1973, is some what similar to Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. But sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which existed prior to 1973 is not at all pari materia with Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 14. Sub-section (1) of Section 155 of the Customs Act gives a protection to the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done or intended to be done in good faith in pursuance of the Act or the rules or regulations. There is a bar on filing a suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding, if the act is done in good faith. 15. Counsel for the petitioner is not claiming the protection as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, as it is contended by the learned counsel that the protection sought for under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act was rejected upto the High Court. Counsel for the petitioner is seeking protection under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act on the ground that the words “no proceeding” mentioned in sub-section (2) includes criminal prosecution, and therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that a month's previous notice in writing is mandatory. 16. Counsel for the petitioner is seeking protection under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act on the ground that the words “no proceeding” mentioned in sub-section (2) includes criminal prosecution, and therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that a month's previous notice in writing is mandatory. 16. The words “no proceeding” appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, in my humble opinion, do not include criminal prosecution, as for the protection pertaining to prosecution, there is specific provision under sub-section (1) of Section 155 of the Customs Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, which has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R. Raju & Anr. (supra) is not pari materia with sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, and therefore, the bar as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act cannot be made applicable to Section 155(2) of the Customs Act. 17. The Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Calcutta High Court have based reliance on Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R.Raju & Anr. (supra) without taking note of the fact that the existing sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act are different from sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which fact went unnoticed both by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court being delivered on the provisions as were existing in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 has no applicability with regard to sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962. 18. The petitioner is not claiming the protection under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act and as per the discussions made by me here in above, the protection of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act is not available to the petitioner. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 19. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4775/2005, wherein the petitioner mentioned that he is entitled to protection provided under Section 155 of the Customs Act. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 19. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4775/2005, wherein the petitioner mentioned that he is entitled to protection provided under Section 155 of the Customs Act. The said writ petition was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 30.03.2015, and in that view of the matter also, the application moved under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act seeking protection was not maintainable. Thus, the writ petition preferred on the same grounds seeking protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act having been dismissed, the present revision petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 20. I therefore, do not find any force in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.