1993 (9) TMI 123 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed based on the exoneration in departmental adjudication proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves two petitions arising from the same facts, where the petitioners were implicated in a case involving smuggling activities. The Customs officers intercepted an auto rickshaw carrying goods of foreign origin, leading to subsequent searches at various premises. The petitioners were accused based on statements and recoveries made during the investigation. Departmental proceedings resulted in the exoneration of the petitioners, with penalties imposed on them being set aside by the Tribunal. However, criminal complaints were filed against them under relevant sections of the Customs Act, leading to the current request for quashing of the proceedings.

The main contention raised by the petitioners was that continuing the prosecution against them, despite being exonerated in the departmental adjudication proceedings, would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Their argument was supported by citing previous court decisions that deemed prosecution on the same set of facts and evidence as improper and unjust when the appellate authority had found the accused innocent. The petitioners argued that the orders of the Tribunal had exonerated them completely, and therefore, the criminal proceedings should be quashed to prevent misuse of the legal process.

On the other hand, the department's counsel argued that the framing of charges had already taken place, and the appropriate remedy for the petitioners was to challenge the charge under the relevant legal provisions. The department contended that departmental adjudication and criminal prosecution were distinct proceedings that could run simultaneously, emphasizing the procedural differences in recording evidence. The department's stance was that exoneration in one proceeding did not guarantee acquittal in the other.

The judgment referenced previous cases where similar issues had been addressed. In one case, the court had ordered the quashing of criminal proceedings after the petitioner was exonerated in departmental adjudication. Another case highlighted that requiring the petitioners to seek remedies under a different provision would be a mockery of justice. Ultimately, the court found that the petitioners had been exonerated by the Tribunal in the departmental proceedings, and the penalties imposed had been set aside, leading to the decision to quash the criminal proceedings against them under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court relied on legal precedents and deemed it a suitable case for exercising its power to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners based on their exoneration in the departmental adjudication process.