9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also an order passed by the ACMM. It reads herein as under :- "In this case order of discharge was passed by my learned Predecessor on 15-1-2007 on the ground that the Chief Commissioner of Customs had compounded offence alleged against accused. Later on an application for requisitioning the file and for proceeding further was moved by the Department on the ground that order of compounding has been ultimately set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Summons were issued to accused on the said application. Meanwhile the applicant went to Hon'ble Supreme Court in "IA No. 2/2009 in Civil Appeal No. 683 of 2008". Para 14 of the said IA read as follows : "That in view of the above a prayer was made by DRI to ACMM, to proceed with the matter as per law. The respondent was summoned. He appeared before ACMM and moved an application that the matter could not be reopened in view of the fact that he had already been discharged by the judicial order dated 15-1-2007." "Prayer Clause of the IA was as follows : (a) Direct the Trial Court (ACMM-II, Dwarka, Delhi to proceed further with the trial in Complain Case No. 34/2/2004/DZU titled Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, Intellige ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia v. Anil Chanana and Anr. The relevant extract of the aforenoted order reads herein as under :- "14. Before concluding, it may be mentioned that the compounding mechanism in Section 137(3) is to be allowed only in cases of doubtful benefit to the Revenue and to prevent needlessly proliferating litigation and holding up of collections. Compounding cannot be allowed if there are apparent contradictions, inconsistencies or incompleteness in the case of the applicant before the Compounding Authority. It is the duty of the compounding authority to ascertain such contradictions before compounding is ordered. In the present case, different versions given by Anil - in his statement under Section 108, in his first bail Application and in his Application for compounding - itself disqualifies Anil from claiming the benefit of compounding under Section 137(3) of the 1962 Act. 15. None of the above aspects have been examined by the Compounding Authority in its order dated 25-5-2006 as well as by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 17-10-2006 and they are hereby set aside. Consequently, the Department's civil appeal stands accordingly allowed with no order as to costs." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y its subsequent direction passed in IA No. 02/2009 on 3-8-2009 having been given effect to by the ACMM, the trial Court has committed a pure illegality; it is not a paper order which was passed by the Apex Court; it had to be given effect to; it can only be implemented if the accused persons were summoned and asked to face trial as the orders of Compounding Authority and the High Court dated 25-5-2006 and 27-10-2006 had been set aside by the Supreme Court while disposing of the Civil Appeal No. 683/2008 on 25-1-2008. The impugned orders are accordingly liable to be set aside. 8. Needless to state that the respondent has refuted these submissions. It is pointed out that on no count, does the impugned order call for any interference. It is submitted that the compounding is given effect to under Section 323 of the IPC and it amounts to an acquittal. For this proposition, he has placed reliance upon (2008) 9 SCC 333 - Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar and Others v. State of Assam. Next submission of the learned counsel for the respondent being that once an order of acquittal had been passed, the revisional Court is slow in interference of such an order; until and unless, there is a paten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 20-2-2010. It illegally agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that despite a specific prayer made by the Department to reopen the case, the same had not been allowed. The order of the Supreme Court passed in IA. No. 02/2009 on 3-8-2009 had clearly recited that the Department would work out its rights consequent to its earlier judgment dated 25-1-2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 683/2008. The judgment dated 25-1-2008 (as noted supra) had set aside the order of the Compounding Authority as also of the High Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was not a paper order; it had to be given effect to and implemented. The only way and manner they could be implemented was by the ACMM ordering a retrial of the respondent; that was the only manner in which the judgment dated 25-1-2008 could be given effect to. At the cost of repetition, since the order of the Compounding Authority and the High Court (which had endorsed the order of the compounding authority) had been set aside, the necessary corollary would be that the offence under Section 132 and Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act had to be tried. It is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
