9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Continuation of prosecution under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 after exoneration in adjudication proceedings. 2. Validity of prosecution based on the same set of facts and evidence after departmental exoneration. 3. Applicability of the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 138A of the Customs Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Continuation of prosecution under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 after exoneration in adjudication proceedings. The court examined whether the prosecution should continue after the petitioners were exonerated in adjudication proceedings. The facts of CRLM (M) 1132/2002 involved the importation of decorative paper for laminate, which was later found to be wallpaper, leading to the seizure of goods and initiation of adjudication and criminal proceedings. The Tribunal eventually accepted the declared value of the goods, exonerating the petitioners. Similarly, in CRL. R. Nos. 157, 271-272/2002, foreign currency was seized, and the petitioners were penalized, but the Appellate Authority later exonerated them, finding no involvement in the attempted export. Issue 2: Validity of prosecution based on the same set of facts and evidence after departmental exoneration. The court noted that the departmental authorities are not courts within the meaning of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, and their findings do not bar prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act. However, the court emphasized the desirability of continuing prosecution after departmental failure in adjudication proceedings. Citing previous judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, the court highlighted that if the department fails in adjudication, it is unjust to proceed with criminal prosecution on the same facts and evidence. The court referenced cases like P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar and Uttam Chand v. Income Tax Officer, where prosecution was quashed following departmental exoneration. Issue 3: Applicability of the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 138A of the Customs Act. The court considered whether the presumption of culpable mental state could strengthen the prosecution's case. It concluded that mere guilty intention without any overt unlawful act is not punishable. Since the departmental Tribunal did not find facts that could make the petitioners liable for punishment, raising a presumption of guilty state of mind would not aid the prosecution. The court emphasized that in the absence of recovery of contraband articles or any overt act, the presumption under Section 138A is insufficient to sustain prosecution. Conclusion: The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, finding no cogent reason to continue prosecution after departmental exoneration and in the absence of any overt unlawful act. The petitions CRL. R. 157/2002, CRL. R. 271/2002, CRL. R. 272/2002, and CRLM (M) 1132/2002 were allowed, and the proceedings in the Court of learned ACMM, Patiala House, New Delhi, were quashed.
|
