Ashok Manufacturing Company Pvt. ... vs C.K. Moorjani
2000 Latest Caselaw 1101 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Sections 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of Cr. P.C. challenging the order dated 1-7-1998 passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. The short submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that once the petitioners have been totally exonerated in the departmental proceedings, then on the same charges criminal proceedings against them cannot continue. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal reads as under :-

"The appellants from the very beginning i.e. from the date of seizure took a specific stand that goods were not in finished form and the Tribunal in their final order No. A/54/90-NB, dt. 19-2-90 accepted the plea of the appellants and directed for joint inspection of the goods. The goods were never inspected as they were not available for inspection. The Revenue has not produced any seizure memo in respect of these goods. The Collector in the impugned order relied upon the statement of Shri V.D. Chopra, excise clerk. Shri V.D. Chopra immediately on 14-10-85 made a statement before the authorities that the goods were in semi-finished condition and the appellants made a representation to the authorities stating therein that the goods were not in fully manufactured form. The appellants are therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. In view of the discussion above the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed."

2. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal filed by the appellants was allowed. On the strength of the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners filed an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned A.C.M.M., New Delhi on the ground whether the prosecution of the petitioners on the same set of facts and findings on the basis of which the departmental proceedings were initiated and finally resulted in the exoneration of the petitioners is just and proper.

3. The petitioners placed reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court. The learned A.C.M.M. has noted those judgments, but dismissed the petition of the petitioners on the ground that the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Sant Ram Paper Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [1997 (96) E.L.T. 19] has observed that the Criminal Court proceedings shall be determined on its own merits and in accordance with law uninhibited by the findings of the Tribunal. A bare reading of the facts of the aforesaid case clearly indicates that the petitioner was not exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the said case, and in that perspective, the Supreme Court observed that even if in the departmental proceedings the petitioner is found guilty, still Criminal Court proceedings can continue uninhibited by the findings of the Tribunal. In the instant case, the petitioners were completely exonerated by the Tribunal and, therefore, criminal proceedings cannot continue on the same charges.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Uttam Chand and Ors. v. ITO [1982 (133) ITR 909 (S.C.), G.L. Didwania v. ITO [1999 (108) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) and a judgment of this Court in Munna Lal Khandelwal and Ors. v. B. Hazra, Enforcement Officer and Ors. . In this case the Court has reiterated the consistent view of the Apex Court and mentioned that if the charges against the petitioners in the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are one and the same and if the charges which are identical could not be established against the petitioners in the departmental proceedings one wonders what is there further to proceed against them in the criminal proceedings. Thus, in view of the fact that the petitioners have been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the very basis of the complaint does not exist and the petitioners' prosecution on the same set of facts and evidence cannot be sustained. The Court further observed that there is no prospect of the cases ending in conviction and the valuable time of the trial Court would be wasted for holding the trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce its conclusion on a future date. The Court further observed that in this view of the matter, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue and thereby forcing the petitioners to face the ordeal of a trial would be an abuse of the process of law. The facts and findings of the aforesaid case are squarely applicable to the present case. In the instant case, the petitioners have been totally exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the very basis of the complaint does not exist and the petitioners' prosecution on the same set of facts and findings cannot be sustained. Any further criminal proceedings would be clearly an abuse of the process of law. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order, passed by the learned A.C.M.M., dated 1-7-1998 is set aside.

5. This petition along with Crl.M.No. 6662/98 is accordingly disposed of .