ORDER
In exercise of the powers conferred under section 24 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, Dr. C. Margabandhu, Director (Antiquities), Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi is hereby authorised to decide whether any article/objects seized by the CBI/Police/Income Tax and lying in appeal is or is not an antiquity for the purpose of this Act, as requested by Assistant Collector, Customs, CFS, Delhi vide their letters dated 15.10.93 and 18.10.93 in his capacity as the authorised nominee of the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. He is also authorised to decide other pending cases, if any, as authorised nominee.
(Achala Moulik)
Director General
Archaeological Survey of India'
5. The objection of the petitioner is that authorisation was made in favor of Dr. C. Margabandhu in response to a request by the Assistant Collector Customs, CFS, Delhi vide their letter dated 15.10.93, and 18.10.93 and that the authorisation was specific to these articles. According to the petitioner by virtue of this authorisation Dr. C. Margabandhu could not have declared the articles in question in this case as antiquities. The petitioner is not willing to take note of the last sentence of this authorisation
'he is also authorised to decide other pending cases, if, any, as authorised nominee.'
6. I find absolutely nothing wrong in the order dated 16.11.93. There can be no doubt that Dr. C. Margabandhu by this order has been authorised to decide not only the case arising out of the letters of Assistant Collector of Customs dated 15.10.93 and 18.10.93 but also other cases which may be pending. This case was pending at that time as the requisition for certifying these objects as antiquities was dated 4.11.93. This dates reflected in the order dated 24.1.94 by which 15 of the articles have been declared as antiquities.
7. The next objection relating to the authorisation for filing of the complaint by Shri S.K. Saran, an officer of CBI also does not hold any water. The complaint itself is alleged to be invalid because of lack of authorisation in the officer filing the complaint. The complaint has been filed by Shri S.K. Saran, an officer of CBI who was duly authorised to investigate into the offence and to file a complaint. The authorisation has been given by the Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Department of Human Resource Development. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Secretary could not have issued the authorisation because he himself is a delegatee of power and could not have further delegated the power. I find no logic in this submission. The Secretary has not delegated his power. He has power to authorise or to issue sanction on behalf of the Government to institute a prosecution for an offence u/s 25(1). Granting of authorisation does not mean delegation of power. It is not being alleged that somebody other than the Secretary should have issued the order of authorisation.
8. The plea that Shri S.K. Saran could not have been directed to file the complaint is based on the plea that he was throughout involved in the investigation and thereforee he should not have filed the complaint. The judgment in the case of K.G. Anjaneyalu v. Chairman, Puri Municipality : AIR1963Ori158 and Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation 1994 SCC 1096 do not deal with the subject at hand.
9. I find absolutely no logic in the submission that since Section 411 IPC has been dropped from the chargesheet the other offences under the Act also has to be dropped. Similarly, the last objection that the expert that Dr. C. Margabandhu himself did not know the power of the Secretary is also not of any consequence.
10. In view of the above discussion, revision petition is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.5,000/-