9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allegation of under-valuation of exported consignment of precious stones. 2. Legal validity of prosecuting petitioners after departmental adjudicating authority found no contravention. 3. Doctrine of res judicata in relation to a dismissed petition. Analysis: The judgment by Justice Malik Sharief-Ud-Din of the High Court of Delhi pertains to a case where the petitioners were charged under Sections 135 and 132 of the Customs Act for allegedly exporting a consignment of precious stones that was under-valued. The consignment was confiscated, and a penalty was imposed by the Collector of Customs. However, the Central Board of Excise and Customs set aside the Collector's order after finding that there was no under-valuation, thereby rejecting the allegation against the petitioners. The primary contention raised was that if the departmental adjudicating authority found no contravention of the law, the petitioners should not be prosecuted on the same facts. The counsel for the respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable due to the doctrine of res judicata, citing a previous dismissed petition. However, the court ruled that since the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn and not on merits, the doctrine of res judicata did not apply. Referring to legal precedents, including the case of Uttam Chand and others v. Income-Tax Officer, the court held that initiating prosecution based on facts and evidence that the departmental authorities themselves disbelieved to be true was unjust. The court emphasized that the degree of proof required in criminal matters is stringent, and prosecuting individuals based on facts that the department itself deemed non-existent amounted to persecution. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint case pending in the lower court, as the prosecution was deemed unwarranted in light of the findings of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of consistency between departmental adjudication and criminal prosecution, emphasizing that individuals should not be prosecuted based on allegations that have been refuted by the departmental authorities. The court's decision serves as a safeguard against unjust persecution and upholds the principle of fairness in legal proceedings.
|
