9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order dated 1-7-1998 passed by Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi under Sections 397, 401, and 482 of Cr. P.C. Analysis: 1. The revision petition challenged the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners after their exoneration in departmental proceedings. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal accepted the appellants' plea that goods were not in finished form, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal filed by the appellants. 2. The petitioners filed an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned A.C.M.M., New Delhi, questioning the justification of prosecuting them based on the same facts and findings that resulted in their exoneration in departmental proceedings. 3. The A.C.M.M. dismissed the petition, citing a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that criminal court proceedings should be determined independently of tribunal findings. However, the petitioners argued that since they were completely exonerated by the Tribunal, criminal proceedings on the same charges should not continue. 4. The petitioners relied on various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and a judgment of the High Court, emphasizing that if charges in departmental and criminal proceedings are identical and not established in departmental proceedings, continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process. The Court agreed that since the petitioners were exonerated in departmental proceedings, their prosecution on the same facts would be unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the revision petition and setting aside of the impugned order. 5. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 1-7-1998 was set aside, disposing of the petition along with another related matter.
|
