AMARJIT SINGH Vs. SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the two petitioners seek quashing of a criminal complaint under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pending against them in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

(2.) RELEVANT facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that on receiving information that the petitioners were importing electronic goods from Hong Kong at grossly undervalued prices and had been submitting invoices showing lower price to Indian Customs authorities at the time of import the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI in short) investigated the matter. After investigation notices were given by the Additional Director General, DRI, New Delhi to the petitioners demanding customs duty amounting to Rs. 25,69,151/ - from petitioner no. 1 Amar Jit Singh, who was carrying on the business of electronic goods in the name of M/s Singh Electronics in Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi and Rs. 12,20,010/ - from petitioner no. 2 Inder Pal Singh, who was also doing the same business in the name of M/s Samrat Enterprises in Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi, in view of their having grossly undervalued the electronics goods imported by them. On their failure to pay the said customs duty, which the petitioners had allegedly evaded, a criminal complaint for the offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Act, (being Crl. Complaint No. 27/1) was instituted by the DRI on 02.04.2003 against the two petitioners herein and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on the same day took cognizance and summoned the petitioners. On 07/04/2003 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 19.07.2004 then granted immunity to the petitioners from the penalty and fine which could also be imposed upon them under the Act but did not give the benefit of immunity from their prosecution since the criminal complaint for their prosecution had already been filed in Court by the DRI before their approaching the Settlement Commission.

(3.) MR . Satish Aggarwala, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that since as per the provisions of the Act the Settlement Commission could not grant immunity from prosecution where the proceedings for prosecution for any such offence had been instituted before the date of receipt of the application under Section 127B this petition deserves to be dismissed and complaint against the petitioners should not be quashed by this Court just because the petitioners had paid the customs duty as per the decision of the Settlement Commission. The submission was that the petitioners could always withdraw their applications for settlement after they had come to know that their prosecution had already been launched before their filing applications for settlement before the Settlement Commission instead of paying the demanded amount of customs duty and having not done that they cannot be permitted now to say that they have been a victim of a technical bar under Section 127H of the Act whereunder it is provided that no immunity from prosecution can be given by the Commission if prosecution of the duty evader had already been launched before the filing of the application for settlement before the Settlement Commission.