2010 (2) TMI 515 - HC - Customs

Criminal proceedings prosecution non executive director Held that - The only role played by a non-executive Director like the Petitioner who was a salaried person is of the signing of the documents and more particularly a form and the power of attorney. However the Adjudicating Authority has observed that this much is not enough to saddle him with a penalty and by referring to the entire transaction - Tribunal has turned down the pleas of the department criminal proceedings can not continue in such case - allowing the Criminal Prosecution to continue against the Petitioner would be an undue harassment and abuse of process of the Court. For securing the ends of justice this criminal prosecution must be quashed as against the Petitioner

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for discharge from criminal proceedings.
2. Continuation of criminal proceedings after favorable adjudication proceedings.
3. Abuse of the process of the court.
4. Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Discharge from Criminal Proceedings:
The Petitioner, a 70-year-old senior citizen, sought discharge from criminal proceedings under Section 135(1)(a), 132 of Chapter XVI of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The Petitioner was a non-executive Director of Accused No. 1, M/s. P.J. Pipes & Vessels Ltd., and had no pecuniary interest in the company or involvement in its day-to-day operations. His limited role involved holding a Power of Attorney from Accused No. 1 and signing certain documents. The Petitioner had been exonerated in adjudication proceedings by the Customs and Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the penalty imposed on him by the Adjudicating Commissioner. This order was not challenged by the Respondent and had gained finality.

2. Continuation of Criminal Proceedings After Favorable Adjudication Proceedings:
The Petitioner argued that the continuation of criminal proceedings on the same set of facts and allegations, which had already been resolved in his favor in adjudication proceedings, constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The standard of proof in adjudication proceedings is less rigorous than in criminal proceedings. Since the department could not prove the allegations in the adjudication proceedings, it was unlikely to succeed in the criminal prosecution. The Respondent, however, contended that adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are distinct and can continue parallelly, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. Abuse of the Process of the Court:
The court examined whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Referring to previous judgments, the court noted that if the continuation of criminal proceedings, after the conclusion of favorable adjudication proceedings, constitutes an abuse of the process, the inherent powers of the court can be invoked to quash such proceedings. The court cited its own decisions in Raichand C. Jain v. Surendra Prasad and Manoj Kumar Sarangi v. Dy. Commissioner of Cus. (P) R. & I., where similar contentions were upheld, emphasizing that the nature and degree of proof in criminal trials are more rigorous than in adjudication proceedings.

4. Inherent Powers of the High Court:
The court acknowledged its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. The court emphasized that these powers should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the continuation of proceedings would result in injustice. In this case, the court found that the Petitioner's limited role and the exoneration in adjudication proceedings justified the exercise of inherent powers to quash the criminal prosecution.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that allowing the criminal prosecution to continue against the Petitioner would result in undue harassment and constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The Petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner were quashed. The court refused the Respondent's request for a stay of the order, noting that the charges had yet to be framed in the criminal prosecution. The Petitioner's discharge from the criminal proceedings was thus affirmed.