2000 (4) TMI 46 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
The petition seeks a stay of trial in CC No. 8 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, involving contravention of offences under Sections 112A and 111 of the Customs Act, punishable under Section 135 of the Act, pending adjudication of proceedings in OR. No. 2/98 (ADGN) customs dated 11/12-2-1998 before the Commissioner, Customs and Excise, Hyderabad.

Facts and Prosecution Case:
Accused A1 to A3 carried gold from Sharjah to Hyderabad without declaration, leading to liability for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Accused nos. 4 and 5 abetted by possessing foreign currency to pay customs duty, also liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Prosecution alleges liability under Section 135(1)(a) and (b) and (ii) of the Customs Act for abetting illegal activities.

Contentions and Precedents:
Petitioners seek stay based on pending adjudication proceedings, arguing that lesser standard of proof in confiscation proceedings could impact criminal trial. Citing judgments of the Delhi High Court, petitioners argue that dropping of adjudication proceedings should lead to quashing of criminal proceedings if favorable. However, the Central Customs and Excise Department argues against this view, citing a Supreme Court judgment that adjudication proceedings do not bar criminal prosecution.

Supreme Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court held that dropping of adjudication proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution, rejecting the argument that failure in adjudication proceedings should lead to quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that adjudication proceedings do not preclude criminal prosecution, even if the former is dropped in favor of the accused.

Conclusion:
The petition seeking a stay of criminal proceedings is dismissed. The Court notes that while it may be desirable for the criminal court to wait for the conclusion of adjudication proceedings in some cases, the decision to adjourn criminal proceedings pending adjudication is left to the trial court's discretion. The directive is given for the adjudication proceedings to be completed promptly.