Thane, April 7 A special court in Thane has acquitted a former deputy commissioner of the customs department in a 2023 corruption case, citing that the chargesheet in the matter was filed without the required sanctions from the competent authority.
Special Judge D S Deshmukh of the CBI court, while allowing the discharge application of Dinesh Devram Fuldiya, the former customs official, clarified that the prosecution is at liberty to file a fresh chargesheet once a valid sanction is obtained.
A copy of the order dated April 4 was made available on Monday.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested Fuldiya and another official, posted at the Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva, on June 6, 2023, for allegedly accepting bribes from a middleman to permit the illegal import of goods.
According to the case details, Fuldiya and another official, through a middleman, helped customs house agents exploit the "transfer of residence" clause of the Customs Act, according to which a person who has lived abroad for more than two years can import used household goods by claiming an exemption of up to Rs 5 lakh.
Fuldiya was booked under sections 7, 7A, 8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with the Indian Penal Code sections for criminal conspiracy and cheating.
Fuldiya moved for discharge under section 227 of the CrPC, contending that the CBI had filed a chargesheet without the required mandatory sanctions, which he argued was "bad in law".
The CBI, in its response, admitted that the sanction for prosecution under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was still awaited from the competent authority.
The court observed, "As per the provisions of section 19 of the Act, no court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under (sections 7, 11, 13 and 15)... alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction."
It noted that when the chargesheet was filed, no sanction was accorded by the competent authority for the prosecution of the accused.
The court, however, emphasised that the discharge was on technical grounds and not on the merits of the evidence.