Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. These three revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order inasmuch as they raise common issues, although there are separate orders which are impugned in these petitions.
2. The facts involved in these three impugned orders are identical. For the sake of brevity, the facts noticed in the impugned order passed in the case of accused Girish Dhawan (in paragraph 2 thereof) are set out herein below:
The officers of DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, intercepted a consignment of Antiquities which were being allegedly attempted to be smuggled out to Hongkong in six packages vide shipping Bill No 416 dated 19.1.93 by making false declaration as handicraft items of stones. The alleged antiquities were loaded from a container which was parked at ICD Tughlakabad, Okhla, Phase-I, New Delhi. It has been alleged that 18 stone sculptures of Deities recovered were certified to be Antiquities and certified by Archaeological Survey of India. The allegations against accused Girish Dhawan are that his services were engaged for documentation and processing of shipping bills in attempting to export the consignment to Hongkong by promising him a huge sum of rupees. The complaint was filed under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act whereas no complaint was filed for the violation of Antiquities and Art Treasurer Act, 1972.
3. The accused relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. V.J.A. Flynn v. S.S. Chauhan and Anr. 1996 JCC 424, in support of their pleas of discharge under offences alleged to have been committed by them under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was their contention before the learned ACMM that when a special act and a special procedure has been provided then the Customs Act, 1962 would not operate in so far as prosecution is concerned. It is their case that prosecution in respect of the export of such articles can only take place under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. This argument was accepted by the learned ACMM on the strength of the said decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. V.J.A. Flynn (supra). Accordingly, the learned ACMM discharged the accused of all the offences under the Customs Act, 1962. No complaint had been filed for the violation of any provision of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
4. I have heard Mr. Satish Aggarwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents. Mr. Aggarwal submits that the said decision of this Court in the case of Dr. V.J.A. Flynn (supra) was taken up to the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. He further submits that notice had been issued by the Supreme Court in that case. However, the matter could not be carried any further as the petition, in the meantime, had become infructuous. So there was no decision rendered by the Supreme Court on this important issue. According to him, prosecution under both the Acts was permissible. Unfortunately, upon a bare reading of the said decision in the case of Dr. V.J.A. Flynn (supra) I find that, after dealing with the provisions of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 quite extensively, this Court came to the conclusion in para 6 of the said decision that provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 after the introduction of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (in replacement of older Act of 1947) are now applicable for confiscation and penalty and not for prosecution whenever export of antiquities is in issue. The Court came to clear conclusion that '[A] bare reading of Section 25 clearly shows that the prosecution is not permitted under the Customs Act for any violation of the provisions of the Antiquity Act for which a separate machinery is provided under the Antiquity Act itself.'
5. In view of this decision, I find that the order of discharge of the respondents to prosecute under Sections 132 and 135(1)(2) of the Customs Act cannot be faulted. Accordingly, these revision petitions are dismissed.