9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the statutory remedy available to them under the Act for seeking compounding of the offences for which they are being prosecuted. As far as the plea of the petitioners that the Court at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the petitioners is concerned the same can be very well urged before the trial Court where the complaint is pending trial since the plea of the Department is that final destination of the goods imported by the petitioners at undervalued prices was Delhi. In view of these rival factual stands from both the sides this question cannot be determined in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. So, on this ground also the petitioners cannot succeed in this petition. - 3325-3326 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)(a) of the Act, (being Crl. Complaint No. 27/1) was instituted by the DRI on 2-4-2003 against the two petitioners herein and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on the same day took cognizance and summoned the petitioners. On 7-4-2003 the petitioners moved separate applications for settlement before the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench at Mumbai (to be referred as the Settlement Commission hereinafter) as provided under Section 127 of the Act. During the proceedings before the Settlement Commission the petitioners agreed to pay the entire demanded amount of Customs Duty and paid it also. The Settlement Commission vide its final order dated 19-7-2004 then granted immunity to the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed by the Customs Department. The submission was that since Legislature itself has made a provision in the Act that on payment of the duty as per the decision of the Settlement Commission the offender can be granted immunity from criminal prosecution it becomes clear that recovery of the Government's dues is the main concern of the Department and not the prosecution of the offender and if such be the position then the continuation of the complaint case against the petitioners in the present case despite their having met the entire demand of the Customs Department would really amount to abuse of judicial process and further that the relief of immunity from their prosecution should not be denied to them which in fact they would have got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In that fact situation the Supreme Court had made the afore-quoted observations and quashed the FIR in respect of the offences under IPC because of the settlement of the matter between the Department and the duty evader despite the fact that under the aforesaid Scheme availed of by the duty evader immunity from prosecution under the Act only could be granted and which only had been given by the competent authority. Mr. Tulsi had also argued, though halfheartedly, that the complaint against the petitioners was in any case not maintainable before a Delhi Court since the offences complained of were committed within the jurisdiction of Mumbai Courts. 4. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount of evaded duty are meant for ensuring that proceedings before the criminal courts are avoided and the Government is also not put to financial loss. This was so observed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalpaiguri v. Om Parkash Mittal, 2005 (II) SCC 51. However, as noticed already and which position was not disputed even by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the remedy of seeking immunity from prosecution from the Settlement Commission is available only before the initiation of prosecution proceedings by the Customs Department. So, in the present case the petitioners having not availed of the remedy of seeking immunity from prosecution from the Settlement Commission before the initiation of criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding amount varies in respect of different offences. 7. The petitioners, thus, could have approached the compounding authority also for compounding of the offences for which they were being prosecuted even after they had approached the Settlement Commission from which they had got the relief of immunity from penalty and fine. The petitioners, however, did not avail of this remedy available to them under the aforesaid Rules of 2005 and, therefore, in my view, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will have to be dismissed because of the failure of the petitioners to avail of the statutory remedy available to them under the Act for seeking compounding of the offences for which they are being prosecuted. 8. As far as the plea of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
