whether Section 155(2) of the Customs Act is pari materia with unamneded Section 40 (2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 . Therefore, this case of Supreme Court of India, Public Prosecutor, Madras vs R. Raju & Anr. Etc on 8 August, 1972, has applicability for protection seeking from Prosecution under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act.

 

Analysis of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act and its Comparison with Unamended Section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944

To determine whether Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is pari materia (similar in substance and scope) with unamended Section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the Supreme Court ruling in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju & Anr. (1972) applies, we must analyze the provisions and the judgment in detail.

---

1. Provisions in Question

Unamended Section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944:

"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."

Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962:

"No proceeding, other than a suit, shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Government for anything done or purported to have been 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."

---

2. Comparison of the Two Provisions

Aspect	Unamended Section 40(2)	Section 155(2) of the Customs Act
Scope	Covers suits, prosecutions, and other proceedings	Excludes suits; applies to prosecutions and other proceedings
Limitation Period	Six months from the accrual of the cause of action	Three months from the accrual of the cause of action
Notice Requirement	No notice requirement	Mandatory one-month prior notice for prosecutions and other proceedings
Good Faith Protection	Implicit under Section 40(1)	Implicit under Section 155(1)

Key Similarities:

1. Both provisions impose a time limitation for initiating legal proceedings.
2. Both aim to protect government officers and the government from delayed and frivolous litigation for acts done in the course of duty.

Key Differences:

1. Unamended Section 40(2) covers suits, prosecutions, and other legal proceedings, whereas Section 155(2) explicitly excludes suits.
2. Section 155(2) introduces a procedural requirement of a one-month prior notice, which was absent in Section 40(2).

---

3. Applicability of the Supreme Court Judgment

Case Summary: Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju & Anr. (1972):

• Facts: The case involved a prosecution under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The accused contended that the prosecution was time-barred under Section 40(2) of the Act, as it was initiated after six months from the date of the alleged act.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Section 40(2) barred prosecutions initiated beyond the six-month limitation period. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits to protect officers from harassment for acts done in good faith.

Relevance to Section 155(2) of the Customs Act:

1. Time Limitation: The principle laid down in R. Raju—that legal proceedings must adhere to statutory time limits—applies equally to Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, which prescribes a three-month limitation period for prosecutions.
2. Good Faith Protection: The judgment in R. Raju reinforces the legislative intent to protect officers acting in good faith, a principle embedded in both Section 40(2) (unamended) and Section 155(2).
3. Parity of Provisions: While Section 155(2) introduces additional procedural safeguards (e.g., prior notice), its core objective and structure are pari materia with unamended Section 40(2). Therefore, the reasoning in R. Raju is applicable.

---

4. Conclusion

1. Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, is pari materia with unamended Section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, as both provisions aim to protect government officers and impose time limitations on legal proceedings.
2. The principles laid down in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. R. Raju & Anr. (1972) regarding the enforcement of statutory time limits and protection of officers acting in good faith are directly applicable to cases under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act.
3. Any prosecution under the Customs Act must strictly adhere to the three-month limitation period and the one-month prior notice requirement under Section 155(2). Failure to comply with these procedural safeguards would render the prosecution invalid.