1981 (1) TMI 83 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 - Confiscation of goods and car, imposition of fine and penalty - Appeal rejection - Criminal prosecution and conviction - Acquittal in criminal case - Revision rejection - Challenge in writ petition.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the petitioner facing proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, for the seizure of consumer goods and confiscation of a car, along with imposition of fines and penalties. The third respondent ordered the confiscation of goods and the car, with an option for the petitioner to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. Additionally, a penalty was imposed on the petitioner under Section 112 of the Act. The petitioner's appeal to the second respondent was rejected, leading to a criminal prosecution resulting in a conviction by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. However, the petitioner was later acquitted in the Court of Sessions, where it was found that the department's version was not credible, and the petitioner had been mistreated and coerced by Customs Officials. Subsequently, the petitioner's revision against the rejection was also dismissed. The orders of the respondents were challenged in the present writ petition.

The petitioner's counsel argued that since the criminal court had acquitted the petitioner based on the same facts and allegations, it was unfair for the department to penalize the petitioner. The counsel relied on two judgments, including one where it was emphasized that findings and orders of competent criminal courts should be conclusive in proceedings before quasi-judicial tribunals. Another judgment highlighted that when an acquittal is based on merits and identical facts and charges, it would not be proper for a disciplinary tribunal to find guilt and impose punishment. The court noted that the criminal court had acquitted the petitioner on the merits of the case, not on technical grounds, and therefore, the principles from the mentioned judgments applied to the present case. Consequently, the court decided to interfere in the writ petition and allowed it, with no order as to costs.