9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2098 of 2010 and Crl. Rev. P. No. 336 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2014 - Indermeet Kaur, J. Shri Satish Aggarwala, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri R.K. Handoo and Yoginder Handoo, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) is aggrieved by two orders. The first is the order dated 15-1-2007 passed by the learned ACMM which reads herein as under :- I am informed by counsel for the accused that the Chief Commissioner has already compounded the offence pursuant to the application of the accused. Ms. Mala Sharma has no objection for the disposal of the present complaint. In view of the decision of the Hon ble High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12912 of 2006, dated 17-10-2006 the present complaint along with pending applications are disposed of. The accused stands discharged. Surety stands discharged. Documents be returned after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to record room. 2. The second is the order dated 20-2-2010 which is 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 Chie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go into the detailed facts. 4. Record relevant for the purpose of these petitions reflects that :- (i) On 25-5-2006, the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Delhi vide his order of the even date allowed the compounding of the offence under Section 132 and Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act; this compounding was allowed on the respondent undertaking to pay a sum of ₹ 15 lacs as the compounding fee. (ii) Aggrieved by this order, the DRI filed a W.P. (C) No. 12912/2006 before the High Court. This was dismissed on 17-10-2006 [2007 (207) E.L.T. 351 (Del.)]. (iii) Accordingly in view of the aforenoted orders dated 25-5-2006 and 17-10-2006, the ACMM passed the aforenoted order on 15-1-2007. (iv) Against the order dated 17-10-2006, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Supreme Court which was disposed of vide judgment dated 25-1-2008, in Civil Appeal No. 683/2008 [2008 (222) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)] titled Union of India 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 benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-8-2009 by the Supreme Court which passed the following order :- It will be open to the Union of India to work out its rights consequent upon our judgment dated 25 January, 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 683/2008 in accordance with law. I.A. is disposed of accordingly. 6. The Department approached the Court of the ACMM but the ACMM vide the aforenoted order dated 20-2-2010 (supra) passed the said order. The ACMM was of the view that although a specific prayer had been made by the Department before the Apex Court seeking a direction for reopening of the case but the same had not been permitted and the ACMM not being in a position to recall its order, the said application was dismissed. 7. On behalf of the Department, arguments have been addressed in detail. It is pointed out that the order passed by the Supreme Court on 25-1-2008 followed by 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e writ petition, i.e., W.P. (C) No. 12912/2006 which had been preferred by the Department. It was on the strength of both these orders, i.e., 25-5-2006 and 17-10-2006 that the ACMM dropped the prosecution against the respondent. This is clear from the order itself wherein both the orders of the compounding as also the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court were noted by the ACMM. The Supreme Court however gave a different turn to this story. On 25-1-2008 while disposing off W.P. (C) No. 683/2008, it had set aside the order of the Compounding Authority dated 25-5-2006 as also of the High Court dated 17-10-2006. The necessary consequence being that the appeal of the Department stood allowed. The Department moved an appropriate application before the ACMM on which summons were issued to the respondent. The ACMM however illegally passed 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 rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
