2024 (10) TMI 66 - HC - Customs

Rejection of application filed by the petitioners u/s 245 (2) of Cr.PC thereby refusing to discharge the petitioners and to quash the complaint - excess drawback amount demand by Additional Commissioner of Customs - HELD THAT - Admittedly, on the basis of the original order dated 30.09.2013, produced as per Annexure-E, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, the criminal proceedings was initiated by filing the complaint on 07.03.2017, in which, the petitioners, being the accused has filed an application under Section 245 of Cr.PC, seeking discharge on various grounds. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the order in question is not set aside rather the same is pending consideration before the Revisional Authority. When the fact that the revision preferred by respondent No. 1 is pending consideration before the Revisional Authority, no purpose would be served if the complainant is permitted to be proceed against the petitioners. At the same time, if the accused is discharged on the ground that the original order dated 30.09.2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration, that too when the same is challenged and pending consideration before the Revisional Authority, respondent No. 1 will lose its right to prosecute the petitioner on the basis of the order in question - it is deemed appropriate to direct the learned Magistrate to stop the further proceedings against the petitioners in the pending prosecution, with liberty to respondent No. 1/complainant to revive the complaint to order on final adjudication of the dispute by the Revisional Authority i.e., The Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The Special court for Economical offences, Bengaluru is directed to stop the further proceedings pending against the petitioners for the present, with liberty to respondent No. 1 to revive the complaint on final adjudication of the dispute by the Revisional Authority i.e., The Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India. Writ Petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash order rejecting application under Section 245 (2) of Cr.PC.
2. Dispute regarding excess drawback amount demand by Additional Commissioner of Customs.
3. Challenge of demand through revision and appeal process.
4. Criminal proceedings initiated based on original order.
5. Dismissal of application seeking discharge under Section 245 of Cr.PC.
6. Pending revision by complainant before Revisional Authority.
7. Court's decision on further proceedings against the petitioners.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order rejecting their application under Section 245 (2) of Cr.PC and to quash a complaint filed by respondent No. 1. The petitioners, a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing and exporting readymade garments, faced a demand for excess drawback amount by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The petitioners challenged this demand through a revision and appeal process, which led to the matter being remanded back for fresh consideration. Criminal proceedings were initiated based on the original order, and the petitioners sought discharge under Section 245 of Cr.PC, which was dismissed by the Magistrate due to the pending revision by the complainant before the Revisional Authority.

The court considered the admitted facts and contentions of the petitioners. It noted that the revision by the complainant was pending before the Revisional Authority, and proceeding against the petitioners would serve no purpose. Discharging the accused based on the original order being set aside would also prejudice the complainant's right to prosecute. Therefore, the court directed the Magistrate to stop further proceedings against the petitioners in the pending prosecution, allowing the complainant to revive the complaint upon final adjudication by the Revisional Authority, i.e., The Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, to halt further proceedings against the petitioners in the criminal case, with the complainant having the liberty to revive the complaint upon final adjudication by the Revisional Authority.