9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Quashing of Criminal Complaint under Section 482 of CrPC based on exoneration in adjudication proceedings by CEGAT.
In this judgment, a petition was filed seeking the quashing of a criminal complaint under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The complaint alleged involvement in smuggling goods of foreign origin. The goods were seized, and the Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation and imposed a penalty. However, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) exonerated the petitioner due to lack of evidence of smuggling. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Sunil Gulati case and argued that since CEGAT's exoneration order was final, continuation of criminal proceedings was unjustified. The petitioner's counsel cited the Calcutta High Court judgment in Modern Malleables Limited case to support the argument for quashing criminal proceedings post exoneration in adjudication proceedings. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel relied on the judgment in Mohd. Ali Jabiullaha case, which held that exoneration in adjudication does not warrant quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court noted that CEGAT's exoneration was based on evidence presented by the Department, making it distinguishable from the Mohd. Ali Jabiullaha case. The Court found the present case aligned with the Sunil Gulati judgment, which emphasized quashing criminal proceedings post exoneration. Given the finality of CEGAT's exoneration order, the Court ruled in favor of quashing the criminal complaint. Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition and discharged the petitioner from the criminal complaint. The order for quashing the complaint was issued, and a copy was directed to be sent to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate promptly. The judgment highlighted the significance of exoneration in adjudication proceedings by CEGAT as a valid ground for seeking the quashing of criminal complaints under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
|
