2007 (11) TMI 308 - HC - Customs

Prosecution - Effect on criminal proceedings - Smuggling - Evidence - Held that - In the instant case for lack of evidence on 3 points namely proof of ownership of the searched premises proof of smuggled character of the goods and proof of confessional statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act the petitioner was exonerated. Needless to state at the criminal trial the prosecution would be entitled to prove by leading evidence the ownership of the searched premises smuggled character of goods and in particular confessional statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. In view of above discussion the petition is devoid of any merits and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Summoning of the petitioner under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Dismissal of the application to drop proceedings by the ACMM.
3. Quashing of the complaint based on the CEGAT order.
4. Evaluation of the exoneration in adjudication proceedings and its impact on criminal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Summoning of the Petitioner under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner was summoned by the learned ACMM to face trial for an offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, following a complaint filed by a Customs Inspector. The complaint arose from a search conducted on 24-4-2000, where computer parts of foreign origin were seized from premises in Delhi, and the petitioner admitted to smuggling activities in a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

2. Dismissal of the Application to Drop Proceedings by the ACMM:
The petitioner filed an application to drop the proceedings, which was dismissed by the learned ACMM on 15-3-2005. The ACMM held that the findings of the adjudicating authority were not binding on the court, and the prosecution in a criminal case must be determined on its own merits, uninhibited by the findings of the Tribunal.

3. Quashing of the Complaint Based on the CEGAT Order:
The petitioner sought to quash the complaint based on the CEGAT order dated 23-4-2003, which set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The CEGAT exonerated the petitioner, noting that the Department failed to establish the ownership of the premises, prove the smuggled character of the goods, and validate the confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

4. Evaluation of the Exoneration in Adjudication Proceedings and Its Impact on Criminal Proceedings:
The court analyzed whether the exoneration in the adjudication proceedings on merits should lead to the quashing of the criminal complaint. It was noted that the exoneration was due to insufficiency of evidence and failure to prove the confessional statement. The court referred to various judgments, including Sunil Gupta's case, which established that criminal proceedings could continue despite exoneration in departmental proceedings if based on the same set of facts and evidence.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the exoneration in the adjudication proceedings did not automatically nullify the criminal proceedings. The criminal court would independently assess the evidence, including ownership of the premises, the smuggled character of the goods, and the confessional statement. Therefore, the petition to quash the complaint was dismissed, allowing the criminal trial to proceed.