9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeding being oppressive and harassive in nature; such long pendency of the proceeding before the learned Magistrate has eroded the Fundamental Right of the petitioner to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the proceeding in the fitness of thing should be quashed and the charge including the entire proceeding should be quashed. 2.Shri Susanta Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel (duly assisted by Abdul Hamid, Ashok Kumar Pandey and Sayandev Sengupta) appearing for the petitioner has strenuously submitted before this Court that the charge framed against the petitioner should be quashed including the entire proceeding simply of the ground that in a parallel forum the version of the prosecution has been disbelieved and was nugated and it was only apposite that the criminal prosecution should also be quashed. The main plinth of Shri Banerjee's argument reposed on this proposition. 3.Shri Banerjee took much pains to demonstrate his point with regard to the fact that since in the adjudication proceeding which was an offspring of the same set of action which has generated the initiation of the prosecution against the petitioner, having turned in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eopardy as exoneration in the departmental proceeding cannot entail ipso facto exoneration before the Criminal Court as both relate to different sets of action as contemplated under the law. 10.Shri Chowdhury submitted that Tribunal gave the benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioner and the proceedings before the Tribunal entail civil consequence and can have neither any bearing nor any nexus with the criminal case. 11.Shri Chowdhury submitted by referring sections 110 to 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 and submitted that these are relating to various stage with regard to adjudication, confiscation and issuance of imagination could the same i.e., the Criminal prosecution as well as the Adjudication proceeding be linked up together having nexus with each other. 12.Elaborating his points Shri Chowdhury referred to the decision of Shri Vijoy Kumar Jain and Another v. Sri Subodh Chandra Dutta and Another reported in 1993 C Cr. LR (Cal) 199. By relying on the said decision of a learned single Judge of this Court showed that the adjudication proceeding and criminal proceedings cannot be said to be analogous to each other and one cannot be used against the others in case an order ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sant Raj Bhagwanji Bhatia Ors. reported in 1988 Cri. LJ page - 1106. Solely on this ground order for quashing for delay cannot be considered by any Court of law. 17.The other question as to whether the prosecution has degenerated into a weapon of harassment of the petitioner cannot be decided at this stage as already he has been arrayed to answer the Charge as stated above. Now to the main point. 18.In order to better appreciate it is necessary to refer to the substratum of the charge of the two Acts in connection with which the petitioner have been arraigned to answer thereof. 19.Firstly, section 135(l)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows : "135. Evasions of duty or prohibitions. — (1) without any prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person — (a) ***** (b) acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with, any goods which he knows or has reason to believe, are liable to confiscation under section 111, he shall be punishable, - in(i) the case of an offence relating to any o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd another with regard to the offences and their trials and there is no interlinking passage between the two houses spread out within the campus of the Gold (Control) Act they stand separate, erect of each other and each of the said Chapters accommodates various provisions which are extremely bad neighbours of each other. The Gold (Control) Act provides for confiscation of the articles, as well as for imposition of penalty including launching of the prosecution against the accused under section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act. Imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods are jealous mistress of the concept of prosecution and cannot be said to have any intimate report with each other. 23.The decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of : (a) Uttam Chand and Others v. Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar (supra) and (b) G.L. Didwania and Another v. Income-Tax Officer and Another (supra) are in my humble opinion cannot be said to have any bearing on the present case. Those related to the Income-tax Act. 24.In the Income-tax Act there is a specific provision in section 279 (1A) which reads as follows : "(1A) A person shall not be proceeded against for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot act as unwanted match maker and try to marry off the two provisions to distinct and spurning couples by accepting the proposition of Shri Banerjee that if a particular couple of the said set live up to the allegation automatically the other couple should also concede. 30.This is not the legislative intent in the Customs Act as well as in the Gold (Control) Act and in the event, if the Court tries to iron out the creases borrowing fuel from Shri Banerjee's argument it will in the process tear the basic fabric instead of removing the creases. 31.I find much substance in the argument of Shri Chowdhury for the Revenue and the decisions cited by him Sri Vijoy Kumar Jain and Another (supra) is most apposite in the fact situation of the instant case. Similarly, the decision placed by the Revenue in the case of The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and Another v. L.R. Melwani and Another (supra) is also squarely applicable in the fact situation. I am in complete agreement with the version of the Revenue and with due respect to Shri Banerjee am unable to persuade myself to buy his argument. 32.The contention of Shri Banerjee with regard to the question of double jeopardy or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
