AYOOB ISMAIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the exoneration in departmental adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act ipso facto warrant or justify quashing of criminal prosecution against an indictee invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is the question which I am called upon to consider in this Crl.M.C.

(2.) Petitioner faces indictment in C.C. No. 34 of 2005 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. That prosecution is under Section 135 of the Customs Act. There are 2 other accused in that case. The crux of the allegations is that the 1st accused was intercepted when he was in the process of an attempt to export foreign currency at the Airport. He was found to be in possession of foreign currency which he had not declared or could account for. When he was questioned and his statement was recorded, it appears that, he revealed that he had purchased the same from the petitioner herein. The petitioner s premises were searched and allegedly incriminating documents were also seized from the possession of the petitioner. The requisite sanction was obtained and it was thereafter that the prosecution was initiated.

(3.) Parallelly and simultaneously departmental adjudication proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner. In such proceedings, the petitioner was exonerated as per Annexure-II order of adjudication. Penalty was imposed on the 1st accused. So far as the petitioner is concerned, no penalty was imposed on him. I have searched the entire Annexure-II and the only consideration of the role of the petitioner appears in para 45 of that order which I extract below: