2001 (8) TMI 143 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings.
2. Exoneration in adjudication affecting criminal prosecution.
3. Delay in prosecution.
4. Double jeopardy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Proceedings:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings of case No. C-167 of 1990 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta, and the Order dated July 20, 2000, which framed charges under section 85(i)(ii)(a), 85(i)(iii)(a), 85(i)(iv)(a) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and Section 135(i)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that the criminal prosecution should be quashed because the adjudication authority had exonerated him, and the Revenue's appeal against the adjudication order was dismissed.

2. Exoneration in Adjudication Affecting Criminal Prosecution:
The petitioner, represented by Shri Susanta Banerjee, argued that since the adjudication proceeding, which arose from the same set of actions, had turned in his favor, the criminal prosecution should also be quashed. He relied on Supreme Court decisions in G.L. Didwania v. Income Tax Officer and Uttam Chand v. Income Tax Officer, which suggested that exoneration in departmental proceedings should affect criminal proceedings. However, the Revenue, represented by Shri R.K. Chowdhury, countered that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto lead to exoneration in criminal proceedings, as they involve different sets of actions under the law. The court agreed with the Revenue, noting that the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act have separate provisions for adjudication and prosecution, which are not interlinked.

3. Delay in Prosecution:
The petitioner argued that the long pendency of the case since 1990 had eroded his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the court found that the delay was not sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings, as the formal trial had only begun in July 2000, and the petitioner had obtained a stay order shortly thereafter.

4. Double Jeopardy:
The petitioner contended that prosecuting him after exoneration in the adjudication proceeding constituted double jeopardy. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that double jeopardy applies to being prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. The court noted that the adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are distinct processes with different consequences-civil and penal, respectively. The court cited the Supreme Court decision in The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay v. L.R. Melwani, which clarified that adjudication and prosecution are separate and can proceed independently.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the provisions of the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act regarding adjudication and prosecution are mutually exclusive and not complementary. Therefore, exoneration in adjudication does not bar criminal prosecution. The court dismissed the application to quash the proceedings and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously. No order was made as to costs.