2019 (9) TMI 82 - HC - Customs

Proceedings against the officer of Customs - caused loss of customs duty and wrongful gain to the accused - Clearance of parcels as non-taxable articles in gross violation of the procedure for assessment and collections of custom duty - offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a) and 136(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the private complaint indicates that the petitioner herein is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a) and 136(1) of the Act on the charge that the petitioner entered into conspiracy with Accused No. 2 and in furtherance thereof, cleared parcels of dutiable computer parts without collecting the duty payable thereon and thereby caused extensive loss to the Customs Department and wrongful gain to the petitioner and other accused. The order passed by the Tribunal clearly indicates that the petitioner has been exonerated of the charges on merits. Under the said circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Prosecution for same allegations after exoneration in adjudication proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a former Superintendent of Customs, faced a private complaint for allegedly causing loss of customs duty by clearing parcels as non-taxable articles. The Learned Magistrate initially discharged the petitioner, but the order was set aside by the Sessions Judge, leading to the petitioner challenging the proceedings against him. The petitioner highlighted that he was exonerated in disciplinary and adjudication proceedings related to the same accusations. The Tribunal also set aside the penalty imposed on him. Moreover, the petitioner was acquitted in criminal proceedings for similar charges under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner argued that the current prosecution amounted to double jeopardy, citing the principle from the case of 'Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal.'

The respondent contended that the adjudication and criminal proceedings were independent, allowing simultaneous prosecution. The respondent argued that the trial court should determine if the charges overlapped. The main issue for consideration was whether the petitioner's exoneration in adjudication proceedings barred his prosecution for the same facts and circumstances. The court reviewed the complaint and noted the allegations against the petitioner for causing loss to the Customs Department. Referring to a previous Special [Corruption] Case where the petitioner was acquitted, the court emphasized the exoneration in adjudication proceedings and the subsequent deletion of the penalty by the Tribunal.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in 'Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal,' the court analyzed the conflict between views on adjudication and criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that when a person is exonerated on merits in adjudication proceedings, criminal prosecution on the same facts cannot continue. Applying this principle, the court found that since the petitioner was exonerated on merits by the Tribunal, the prosecution against him for the same allegations should be quashed. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed by setting aside the order of the Fast Track Sessions Court.