9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order rejecting the application for discharge. 2. Quashing of the criminal complaint pending against the petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the order rejecting the application for discharge: The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 29/1/1999 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which rejected his application for discharge in Criminal Case No. 208/CW/91. The petitioner argued that he had been exonerated by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) and the Enforcement Directorate, and thus, the prosecution on the same charges should not proceed. The court examined several precedents, including Supreme Court judgments in *Uttam Chand v. Income-tax Officer* and *G.L. Didwania v. Income-tax Officer*, which supported the principle that if a person is exonerated in adjudication proceedings, prosecution on the same charges should be quashed. The court noted that the CEGAT had quashed the penalty imposed on the petitioner, and the Enforcement Directorate had also exonerated him. The court concluded that since the findings of the adjudicating authorities were not challenged and had attained finality, the prosecution could not proceed. 2. Quashing of the criminal complaint pending against the petitioner: The petitioner also sought to quash the criminal complaint (C.C. No. 208/CW/91) pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The court noted that the petitioner was initially charged under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) for allegedly attempting to smuggle currency out of India. However, the Additional Director of the Enforcement Directorate had exonerated the petitioner, and the CEGAT had set aside the penalty imposed by the Customs authorities. The court emphasized that the respondents did not challenge these exonerations, indicating acceptance of the petitioner's innocence. The court referred to the judgment in *Willi Lemback v. Rajan Mathur*, which held that if the department does not challenge the findings of the adjudicating authorities, it cannot proceed with criminal prosecution on the same facts. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal complaint against the petitioner, stating that it was improper to prosecute him when the adjudicating authorities had exonerated him. Order: The court quashed the complaint being C.C. No. 208/CW/91 pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, and the order dated 29/1/1999 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, thereby disposing of the petition in favor of the petitioner.
|
