2011 (1) TMI 1139 - HC - Customs

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C - quashing of complaint case under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act 1962 in which he was arrayed as an accused on the ground that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Customs Appellate Authority in respect of adjudicating proceedings against penalty and in the appeal he was exonerated and the case qua him was found to be false - statement of Shri Varyam Singh alleging the involvement of the Appellant and is not corroborated by the statement of any other person or by any documentary evidence Held that - Since the prosecution was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of available evidence non-joining of the petitioner in investigation cannot be a ground to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of Vinod Kumar Jain (supra). The entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the respondent department against the petitioner is the same that was before the Appellate Authority and since the Appellate Authority had considered the entire evidence and come to above conclusion no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the prosecution against the petitioner before the trial court petition is allowed and complaint case quashed

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of complaint case under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on exoneration in appeal before Customs Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash a complaint case under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, pending before the ACMM, New Delhi, as he was exonerated in an appeal before the Customs Appellate Authority. The Commissioner of Appeal's order highlighted discrepancies in the case, including the lack of evidence to support the allegations against the petitioner. The Adjudicating Authority's findings were deemed unfair, illegal, and not based on facts. The petitioner's claim of not being in India during the alleged offense was supported by corroborative statements and documentary evidence, rendering the accusations unreliable.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the judgments in Vinod Kumar Jain v. Union of India, Vikas Mohan Singhal v. Directorate of Revenue, and D.K. Modi v. K.C. Jhrahim supported quashing the criminal complaint due to lack of evidence. However, the respondent contended that the petitioner being declared a proclaimed offender was crucial, and the case of Joginder Gulati v. IO DRI, New Delhi emphasized that exoneration by a Tribunal does not warrant quashing criminal prosecution. The dispute over the identity of Parmod Kumar was also raised, with the respondent suggesting there was only one individual with two addresses.

3. Drawing parallels with the Vinod Kumar Jain case, the court noted that the prosecution against the petitioner was based on available evidence, despite the petitioner not participating in the investigation. The court emphasized that the evidence presented against the petitioner was the same as considered by the Appellate Authority, leading to the conclusion that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose, given the prior exoneration.

4. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the complaint case titled R.S. Korey, Air Customs Officer v. Parmod Kumar & Ors. under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, pending before the ACMM, New Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed. The judgment highlighted the importance of fair, legal, and fact-based adjudication in such cases to prevent unjust penalties and prosecutions.