JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Johny L Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C challenging the judgment and order dated 09.11.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai, Mizoram in Criminal Complaint No. 17/2018 in connection with Customs Case No. 04/CL/IMP/CUS/CPF-CPI/18-19 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai had dismissed the Criminal Complaint No. 17/2018 on the ground of non-prosecution of the case and delay of submitting final complaintsheet/charge-sheet and then discharged all the accused persons from the offence committed by them. 3. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order as aforesaid, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal praying to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai in Criminal Complaint Case No. 17/2018 and to restore the said criminal complaint and also to allow the appellant to submit the final complaintsheet. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 31.07.2018 at about 5.30 a.m. acting upon the reliable information, the combined team of the Customs Officers along with Assam rifles personnel proceeded towards Vaphai, Champhai district. At about 3.00 p.m., the team stopped three motor bikes of foreign origin with 5 (five) persons and conducted search thereon. The customs officers found three nos. of air compressors (old and used) under seat of each bike. The customs Officers were suspicious as the weight of an air compressor was heavier than a normal air compressor. When the air compressors were opened, the Customs Officers noticed some yellow metal biscuits believed to be gold. After proper checking, about 218 gold biscuits were recovered from the possession of the aforesaid five persons. Except gold biscuits, the Custom Officers also recovered some Indian and foreign currencies from the possession of the aforesaid five persons. On enquiry, the said five persons were identified themselves as 1. Zamsawmtuanga, 2. En Chin Thawn Dal 3. Haulammang 4. KhualLam Thang, 5. Lallianpuia and they failed to produce any valid documents for carrying those gold biscuits. 5. On failing to provide such documents, the Custom Officers informed them about illegal nature of detected goods and accordingly detained the recovered items. Thereafter, the aforesaid persons were brought to Customs office at Champhai and accordingly seizures of those recovered articles were made. Lallianpuia and they failed to produce any valid documents for carrying those gold biscuits. 5. On failing to provide such documents, the Custom Officers informed them about illegal nature of detected goods and accordingly detained the recovered items. Thereafter, the aforesaid persons were brought to Customs office at Champhai and accordingly seizures of those recovered articles were made. One Goldsmith of Champhai was called for weighment of the seized articles and after weighment, the seized articles were found to be 36316.5 grms in total and valued at Rs. 11,18,89,612/-(Rupees Eleven Crore, Eighteen Lakhs, Eighty-Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Twelve) only. 6. After completion of all seizure formalities, the five persons were arrested for violation of provision of the Act, punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, those five persons were produced before the Court on 02.08.2018 except Lallianpuia who was minor at the time of the incident, the other 4(four) persons were sent to Judicial Custody. The minor Lallianpuia was sent to J.J.B. Champhai. Subsequently, on 03.08.2018 all the four accused persons were released on bail by CJM, Champhai. 7. The criminal complaint was submitted before the CJM, Champhai and the same was registered as Criminal Complaint No. 17/2018 A/o Customs Case No. 04/CL/IMP/CUS/CPF-CPI/18-19 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the complainant failed to submit complaintsheet after lapse of two years from the date of filing of the criminal complaint and as such, the case was dismissed on 09.11.2020 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai, Mizoram due to non-prosecution and failure to submit chargesheet for the period of two years and then discharged the aforesaid four accused persons. 8. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai while passing the order on 09.11.2020 in Criminal Complaint No. 17/2018 has among other things observed that the present case has been filed against the respondent/accused persons in the year 2018 and from that year onwards the said case was pending for two years without any progress and in spite of numerous notices sent to the appellant/complainant, they have failed to file final complaintsheet/chargesheet against the accused persons. It has been also noticed from the order dated 09.11.2020 that the CJM, Champhai also observed that the accused persons have been attending the Court regularly all the way from Myanmar. It has been also noticed from the order dated 09.11.2020 that the CJM, Champhai also observed that the accused persons have been attending the Court regularly all the way from Myanmar. Hence, it is grave injustice to the accused persons as they appear before the Court regularly without any effective steps taken by the complainant and consequently discharged the four accused persons from all charges of the present case. 9. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that CJM, Champhai had erred in law and in fact in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 09.11.2020 by illegally dismissing the Criminal Complaint no. 17/2018 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, on account of non-prosecution and failure to file chargesheet for a period of two years and then discharged all the accused/respondents. In this regard, it is well settled law that a criminal case cannot be dismissed on default or due to non-prosecution of the parties. In fact, the appellant through their counsel had always attended the Court when the case was fixed by the CJM, Champhai. However, the accused/respondents were not attending the Court since 05.05.2020 till the day when the case was dismissed on 09.11.2020. 10. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that all the accused were absent on the very day when the case was dismissed on 09.11.2020 and the reasons for their absence was not reflected anywhere in the ordersheet alongwith in the impugned Judgment and order dated 09.11.2020 and as such, the impugned Judgment and order dated 09.11.2020 is liable to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant was not given any chance to clarify or explain as to why the final complaintsheet was not submitted before the CJM, Champhai prior to dismissal of the case. In fact, there is no prescribed limitation for filing the final complaintsheet. However, the final complete complaintsheet against the accused is to be filed within three months from the date of receipt of the sanction order for prosecution. In this case, the sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Commissioner of the Customs (preventive), North East Region, Shillong against the accused on 01.12.2020 and the same was received by the office of the appellant on 31.12.2020. 12. In this case, the sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Commissioner of the Customs (preventive), North East Region, Shillong against the accused on 01.12.2020 and the same was received by the office of the appellant on 31.12.2020. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant also has contended that on the day of passing the order dated 09.11.2020, the counsel for the appellant was present and made submission before the CJM, Champhai to consider the matter but the same was not considered by the CJM, Champhai and passed the order of dismissal and discharged the accused/respondents, which is illegal and perverse. 13. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following case law-Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh and Another reported in (2002) 7 SCC 726 . 14. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent side. I have gone through the record also. It reveals that the notices were properly served to the respondents through their bailors as it appears that the accused persons are foreign nationals (Myanmar). I have also perused the record of Criminal Complaint Case No. 17/2018 including the order dated 09.11.2020 and the order of bail passed on 03.08.2020 by CJM, Champhai. 15. It is seen that all the four accused persons are Myanmar Nationals who were apprehended by Customs Preventive Force of Champhai in connection with seizure 218 numbers of biscuits of yellow metal suspected to be gold weighing 36316.5 grms and were arrested on 01.08.2018 and they were remanded to custody. On the very next day, i.e. on 03.08.2018, the bail petition was moved and they were released on bail by CJM, Champhai. In spite of vehement objection made by the complainant side, on the ground that there is every chance of absconding of the accused persons as they are Myanmarese national, bail was granted to the accused persons without showing any specific grounds for considering the bail. 16. As per the Judgment and order dated 09.11.2020 when the accused persons were discharged, they were not physically present before the Court. The order speaks that the counsel for the accused submitted that the accused persons could not appear before the Court due to international boundary restrictions as they are foreign nationals. 16. As per the Judgment and order dated 09.11.2020 when the accused persons were discharged, they were not physically present before the Court. The order speaks that the counsel for the accused submitted that the accused persons could not appear before the Court due to international boundary restrictions as they are foreign nationals. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant made his submission that there are some procedural issues due to which the chargesheet could not be submitted as the accused persons are foreign nationals. But CJM, Champhai considered the fact as the complainant side had failed to submit final complaintsheet/chargesheet on the date fixed, the complaint case was dismissed and the accused persons were discharged. 17. Another ground shown by the CJM, Champhai is that the accused persons have been attending the Court regularly on the way from Myanmar. Hence, it is grave injustice to the accused persons as they appear before the Court regularly without any effective steps taken by the complainant but the fact is not true as it appears from the concerned record that the bail was granted to the accused persons on 03.08.2018 and one accused was released on 31.08.2018 on furnishing his bail-bond and other three persons were released on 17.09.2018. On subsequent dates fixed by the Court, the accused persons were present till 27.02.2020. After that they did not appear before the Court and in absence of the accused persons on 09.11.2020, the impugned order was passed discharging the accused/respondents. It is not reflected in the order dated 09.11.2020 under what provision the order of discharge was passed against the accused/respondents. 18. The provision of discharge is available to the accused to demonstrate before the Court that after perusing the material and evidence, he has been maliciously charged. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Discharge Application is envisaged to provide remedy to the person who has been maliciously charged. If the allegations which have been made against him are false, this Code provides the provisions for filing a discharge application. If the evidence given before the Court is not sufficient to satisfy the offence and in the absence of any prima facie case against him, he is entitled to be discharged. 19. There are two major classifications of criminal cases under the Code of Criminal procedure that is:- (1) Cases instituted on the basis of a police report (Section 238243). If the evidence given before the Court is not sufficient to satisfy the offence and in the absence of any prima facie case against him, he is entitled to be discharged. 19. There are two major classifications of criminal cases under the Code of Criminal procedure that is:- (1) Cases instituted on the basis of a police report (Section 238243). (2) Cases instituted otherwise than on police report based on the complaint (Section 244-247). 20. There are four types of the trial procedures provided under Cr.P.C:- (1) Summary trials (Section 260-265), (2) Trial of summons cases by Magistrates (Section 251-259), (3) Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates (Section 238-250), and (4) Trial before a Court of Sessions (Section 225-237). 21. In the case in hand, we are dealing with the discharge of accused in warrant procedure case instituted on complaint. Section 245 of Cr.P.C deals with the provision when accused shall be discharged. Section-245 (1) says that:- “ if, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.” 22. Section 245(2) reads as follows:- “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.” 23. Under section 245(1), the Magistrate has to consider whether the evidence produced by the prosecution, if remains unrebutted, is sufficient to make conviction of the accused possible. If there is no convincing material on record against the accused, then the Magistrate shall proceed to discharge the accused under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. 24. Section 245(2) Cr.P.C empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused at any precedent stage of the case which means even before such evidence is led. However, the Magistrate has to come to the conclusion that the charge is groundless in order to discharge an accused under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate can take this decision even prior to the appearance of the accused before the Court or the evidence which is taken under Section 244 Cr.P.C. 25. However, the Magistrate has to come to the conclusion that the charge is groundless in order to discharge an accused under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate can take this decision even prior to the appearance of the accused before the Court or the evidence which is taken under Section 244 Cr.P.C. 25. Coming to the case in hand, the order dated 09.11.2020 is totally silent whether the order has been passed by following provision of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai nowhere stated in her order that she had come to the conclusion that the charge against the accused persons is groundless in order to discharge them under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. 26. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Magistrate is empowered in Law to discharge the accused as per Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C only if he or she has come to the conclusion that the charges against the respondent/accused are groundless. Further, in the present case, the complaint has been filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and there are sufficient and adequate materials including the report from the Goldsmith having 99.56 caret of purity of the gold. As such, invocation of Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C by the CJM, Champhai in discharging the respondents/accused on 09.11.2020 is illegal. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that about 36136.5 grms. of gold biscuits were recovered from the possession of the accused/respondents which is a serious offence, punishable under the Customs Act, 1962. The said act of the respondents/accused is a crime against society. 27. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that about 36136.5 grms. of gold biscuits were recovered from the possession of the accused/respondents which is a serious offence, punishable under the Customs Act, 1962. The said act of the respondents/accused is a crime against society. 27. At this juncture, this Court makes a useful reference to Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as follows:- Evasion of duty or prohibitions:-without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person- (a) is in relation to any goods in any way knowingly concerned in misdeclaration of value or in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any prohibition for the time being imposed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force with respect to such goods; or (b) acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 or section 113, as the case may be: or (c) attempts to export any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 113, or (d) fraudulently avails of or attempts to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act in connection with export of goods, he shall be punishable:- (i) in the case of an offence relating to,- (A) any goods the market price of which exceeds one crore or rupees; or (B) the evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding thirty lakh or rupees; or (C) such categories of prohibited goods as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official gazette, specify; or (D) fraudulently availing of or attempting to avail of drawback of any exemption from duty referred to in clause (d), if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds thirty lakh of rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine: provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be for less than one year; (ii) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (2) if any person convicted of an offence under this section or under sub-section(1) of section 136 is again convicted of an offence under this section, then, he shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the Court such imprisonment shall not be for less than (one year). (3) For the purpose of sub-sections (1) and (2), the following shall not be considered as special and adequate reasons for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than (one year), namely:- (i) the fact that the accused has been convicted for the first time for a reference under this Act; (ii) the fact that in any proceeding under this Act, other than a prosecution, the accused has been ordered to pay a penalty or the goods which are the subject matter of such proceedings have been ordered to be confiscated or any other action has been taken against him for the same act which constitutes the offence; (iii) the fact that the accused was not the principal offender and was acting merely as a carrier of goods or otherwise was a secondary party to the commission of the offence; (iv) The age of the accused. 28. I have already quoted the provision of Section 245 Cr.P.C. A reading of ingredients of sub-section 2 of section-245 Cr.P.C clearly shows that the CJM, Champhai is not clothed with an arbitrary power of discharge. As a matter of fact, there ought to be a ground or material on record to come to any favourable conclusion that no offence has been made as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Baitnath Prasad reported in AIR 2002 SC 64 . 29. In the instant case on hand, the complainant/appellant has not expressed or indicated its inability to submit the final complaintsheet/chargesheet or to examine any witness on their behalf to prove the offence alleged against the respondent/accused. Baitnath Prasad reported in AIR 2002 SC 64 . 29. In the instant case on hand, the complainant/appellant has not expressed or indicated its inability to submit the final complaintsheet/chargesheet or to examine any witness on their behalf to prove the offence alleged against the respondent/accused. Unless the complainant/appellant has expressed their inability to furnish the final complaint sheet/chargesheet against the respondents/accused or to examine any witness on their behalf, there is no propriety or valid justification on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai to pass an order of discharge. 30. It is true that after filing of complaint in the year 2018, the complainant/appellant has failed to submit complaintsheet /chargesheet for about two years but the explanation was rendered by the learned counsel for the appellant that due to covid-19 pandemic, there was nationwide lockdown and they were not in a position to communicate with the concerned office of Commissioner of Custom, Shillong for procuring prosecution sanction in time. As such, there was delay in filing the complaintsheet/chargesheet against the accused persons. The alleged offence against the accused persons under Section 135 of the Customs Act is admittedly a cognizable offence and non-compoundable too. A punishment upto seven years is prescribed under the Act. 31. After going through the order of discharge passed by the trial Court in Complaint case No. 17/2018, this Court is of the considered view that even though after filing of the complaint, for nearly two years no progress has been taken place in the case in spite of numerous notices were sent but considering the fact that at the relevant time of incident and subsequent thereto, there was nationwide lockdown due to covid-19 pandemic. The offices were closed for a long time. Under such backdrop, non-filing of complaintsheet or chargesheet for a period of two years may not matter much. Therefore, this Court in the interest of justice and under the facts and circumstances of the case, holds that the order of discharge passed by the CJM, Champhai in Criminal Complaint Case No. 17/2018 is not in the interest of justice and this Court unhesitatingly sets aside the same to prevent an aberration of justice. Consequently, the Criminal appeal succeeds. 32. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal appeal succeeds. 32. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Resultantly, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai in discharging the respondent/accused from the case in Criminal Complaint Case No. 17/2018 is hereby set aside for the aforesaid reasons. 33. Further, the CJM, Champhai is directed to restore the case being Criminal Complaint Case No. 17/2018 to its file. As it appears that sanction has already been accorded from the Commissioner of Custom, the complainant/appellant is directed to submit the final complaintsheet/chargesheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court without any further delay. It is also directed that the complainant/appellant is to produce the witnesses to substantiate their case before the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of 6(six) months on receipt of filing of final complaintsheet/chargesheet. However, it is made clear that the observations made above will not influence the trial in any manner and the appellant is at liberty to seek any remedy available to them under the law.