TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or citizen, aged 70 years is arrayed as an Accused (Accused No. 3) in the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, being Case No. 330/CS/1992. 3. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 135(1)(a), 132 of Chapter XVI of the Customs Act, 1962 r/w Section 120-B of I.P.C. 4. He applied for discharge from the proceedings and that application having been rejected by the impugned order that he has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Petitioner/Accused contended that the Petitioner is dragged in a Criminal Case which is pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate for past more than 17 years. The Petitioner is Accused No. 3. On the facts as set out in the complaint itself, it is apparent that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged. The role of the Petitioner is extremely limited inasmuch as he was a non-executive Director of Accused No. 1 M/s. P.J. Pipes Vessels Ltd. The only role attributed to him was he had a Power of Attorney in his favour from Accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court has already held that adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are two distinct matters. The criminal proceedings are not liable to be quashed merely because the adjudication proceedings have come to an end or resulted in a favourable order. He submits that if both can continue parallel to each other and the law being clear, then, this is not a fit case for interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, prima facie, the Court below has found that the Petitioner had played a role in the transaction. He was involved in signing of 'H' form. He new the details of the transaction. Therefore, his innocence cannot be presumed. These are proceedings which must continue in public interest and therefore, the Petition be dismissed. 8. The Petition has been argued on the basis of the Judgment rendered by this Court in two Writ Petitions i.e. the case of Raichand C. Jain v. Surendra Prasad reported in 2006 (3) AIR Bom. 411 and in the case of Manoj Kumar Sarangi v. Dy. Commissioner of Cus. (P) R. I. reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T. 114 (Bom.). Both decisions have been rendered by me and in the second decision I have taken note of identical contention of Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Raichand C. Jain v. Surendra Prasad reported in 2006(3) AIR Bom R 411 wherein, in paragraphs 20 and 24, I had observed thus :- "20. However, as has been stated above, it is not as if both proceedings cannot go on. The nature of the proceedings has also been noted and the difference spelt out in the Supreme Court decision referred to above. It is equally true that at the stage where the criminal proceedings are today, namely, framing of charge, it cannot be said that their continuance further is impermissible in law. However, it is also well settled that if the continuation of the criminal proceedings after final conclusion of adjudication proceedings is an abuse of process of the Court, then certainly powers u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. Precisely, this has been done in the case of U.N. Mehta by a learned Single Judge of this Court. There the charges were under the FERA. In that case, adjudication proceedings were in favour of the applicant before this Court. The Department did not carry the matter further and allowed the order of the Special Director to gain finality. In these circumstances, after noticing the judgments referred to above, the learned Single Judge h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non protest" when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist. While exercising powers under the Section, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. Authority of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords, the Adjudicating Authority was not satisfied with his explanation and proceeded to pass an order imposing penalty. That order had been challenged by the Petitioner before the Tribunal and the conclusion recorded by the Commissioner of Customs has been set aside. The allegations are that the Company was issued the Special Imprest licences, details of which are set out in the order of the Commissioner. They were for import of total quantity of 547.962 MT (approx.) of Stainless Steel Plates, imported material to be utilised for manufacture of thread protectors for pipes. The Company imported from September, 1989 to February, 1990 this large quantity of stainless steel plates. It claimed and was granted benefit of exemption from duty under Notification No. 513/86 dated 30th December, 1986. The Notification allows import of raw materials and components required for manufacture of goods supplied to ONGC. 10. On certain information, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigated the matter and found that the thread protectors supplied to ONGC were not made of stainless steel and the goods supplied to ONGC were ordinary carbon steel thread protectors. The investigation revea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the imported goods were used for making the thread protector supplied to ONGC was made despite his being aware that this was not the case, that fact cannot be held against him. It is quite possible as is contended on his behalf that he went by the invoice showing supply of thread protectors of the ONGC without being aware that they were not made out of the imported steel. There is no other evidence implicating anything in the activity which has resulted in the demand of duty or liability to confiscation of the goods. There is nothing to show that he was aware of the plan by Vohra in disposal of the goods in the market. No financial benefit seems to have flown to him his earnings not more than Rs. 5,000/- per month salary that he got. In these circumstances, we do not think that a case has been made out for imposing penalty on him. (5) The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside to that extent." 11. It is pertinent to note that the Department allows this order of the Tribunal to gain finality. The Petitioner had applied for discharge earlier but his application was not considered and granted. He approached this Court and he was granted liberty to apply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
