1987 (3) TMI 120 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings u/s 135 of Customs Act before Metropolitan Magistrate.

Judgment Details:
1. The petitioner sought to quash proceedings pending against him before the Metropolitan Magistrate u/s 135 of the Customs Act through inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate declined to drop the proceedings post-charge, as he lacked the power to do so, which was legally sound.
2. The petitioner's case involved adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, where a fine was initially imposed by the Collector of Customs, later reduced on appeal. The petitioner's subsequent appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal was successful.
3. The facts and evidence forming the basis of the criminal prosecution were the same as those previously adjudicated by departmental authorities. The charge against the petitioner was framed before the final results of the departmental adjudication were available.
4. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case emphasizing that a finding by a competent jurisdiction on the same set of facts is required to drop criminal proceedings. The argument that departmental adjudication does not bar criminal prosecution was supported by legal precedent.
5. Another case highlighted the principle that if departmental authorities find no case based on certain facts, prosecution on the same facts should be quashed. The Tribunal's decision, being final and correct, should prevent criminal liability based on the same facts and evidence.
6. The Tribunal, as a successor to the Central Government, made decisions based on facts and evidence, limiting its powers to fines and confiscation. Prosecuting the petitioner based on the same facts and evidence without a strong case would amount to abuse of court process.
7. The judgment allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings u/s 135A(a) against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Magistrate, highlighting the inconsistency in prosecuting the petitioner based on the same facts and evidence previously accepted by the Tribunal.