TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e granted. 2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 04.1.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.460 of 2009. 3. That the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:- (A) On the basis of specific information, AIR Customs Officers (Preventive) at IGI Airport, New Delhi, on 09.07.1996 recovered and seized from meal trolleys of the aircraft of Lufthansa Airlines flight from Frankfurt to Delhi, 184 gold biscuits of ten tolas each, weighing 21454.400 grams valued at ₹ 1,09,84,652/- concealed in the meal trolleys by two passengers, named Varyam Singh and Ranbir Singh. In their statements, Varyam Singh and Ranbeer Singh admitted the recovery and seizure of gold and named other persons involved in the incident. Varyam Singh, inter alia, disclosed the name of one Pramod Kumar i.e. the respondent herein who invested the money with him in the seized gold as well as the gold smuggled on earlier occasions. (B) Varyam Singh further stated that on 6.07.1996, Ranbeer Singh and he went to Dubai where the respondent delivered two packets of gold; that they went to Frankfurt; that in the flight from Frankfurt to Delhi with the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6914037 on 21.04.1996 three times and one time on 27.04.1996 from his mobile phone, he stated that he did not know the exact date but in the month of April, 1996, his younger brother Shri Pramod Kumar came to Delhi from Dubai as his mother was seriously ill, it might be possible that Shri Pramod Kumar had made four calls from his (Kanwar Bhan) mobile phone to telephone number 6914037 belonging to Shri Varyam Singh as he did not know Shri Varyam Singh and his telephone number. (E) The aforesaid order dated 30.09.1999 was carried in appeal and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) vide his order dated 25.01.2008 set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent. The Appellate Authority was of the view that there were two persons having same name i.e. Pramod Kumar, one in Dubai and the second being the respondent and that beyond the statement of the co-accused there was no material on record. During the course of this order it was observed as under:- If the investment was made by Shri Pramod Kumar of Dubai, then it cannot be linked to the appellant. The department has not made Shri Pramod Kumar of Dubai a party in the case and nothing is on record to suggest that efforts were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellate Authority and since the Appellate Authority had considered the entire evidence and come to above conclusion, I consider that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the prosecution against the petitioner before the trial court. 4. The exoneration of the respondent in the adjudication proceedings was the basis for petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and such exoneration certainly weighed with the High Court. In Collector of Customs v. L.R. Melwani (1969) 2 SCR 438, question Nos.1 2 posed before the Constitution Bench of this Court were as under:- (i) Whether the prosecution from which these criminal revision petitions arose is barred under Article 20(2) of the Constitution as against accused 1 and 2 in that case by reason of the decision of the Collector of Customs in the proceedings under the Sea Customs Act? (ii) Whether under any circumstance the finding of the Collector of Customs that the 1st and 2nd accused are not proved to be guilty operated as in issue estoppel in the criminal case against those accused? 5. The observations of the court in respect of aforesaid questions were as under:- 8 The rule laid down in that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept for limited purpose such as sentence or damages . 7. The exoneration in related adjudication proceedings and the effect thereof on criminal proceedings again came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and Another (2011) 3 SCC 581. In his dissenting opinion P. Sathasivam, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) concluded that there was nothing in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to indicate that a finding in adjudication is binding on a court in prosecution under Section 56 of Act or that the prosecution under Section 56 depended upon the result of the adjudication under the Act. C.K. Prasad J., speaking for the majority summed up as under:- 38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:- (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
