SEIKO BRUSHWARE INDIA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this matter, the controversy raised on behalf of the petitioner is that on the basis of a departmental adjudication holding that the petitioner was guilty of committing offences under the Customs Act, the petitioner was not only proceeded departmentally but a complaint was also filed on behalf of the second respondent under Section 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thereafter on the same day, Ld. ACMM, Patiala House, New Delhi, issued summons to the peititioner herein.

(2.) SUBSEQUENT to the original adjudication by the Enforcement Directorate, the petitioner filed a first appeal which was dismissed. However, in the second appeal filed by him before CESTAT, the petitioner was completely exonerated vide order dated 22. 02. 2005 of the offences alleged to have been committed in the original departmental adjudication.

(3.) IN this manner, the basis on which the complaint has been filed by the second respondent stood nullified and therefore, in such kind of matters continuing criminal complaint is not justified. The said complaint is pending in the Court of ld. ACMM, Patiala House, New Delhi, institued by the second respondent and therefore is liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C.