GOVINDA RAM JALAN Vs. BHOLANATH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking to quash the proceedings of case No.C-167 of 1990 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta and for setting aside the Order dated July 20, 2000 passed by the said learned Magistrate thereby framing a charge under section 85(i) (ii)(a) 85(i)(iii)(a)/ 85(i)(iv)(a) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and under section 135(i)(b)(i) of the customs Act, 1962 against the aforesaid petitioner, this application has been taken out on several grounds. Principal amongst them relate to demolition of part cause of action of the Revenue before the Appellate Authority where the Appeal preferred against the adjudication Order by the Revenue was dismissed; exoneration in one forum i.e., the Adjudication Authority being the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive); the Criminal prosecution arising out of the same incident was also liable to fail; the petitioner has been facing the agony of the case since March, 1990 which has resulted in the proceeding being oppressive and harassive in nature; such long pendency of the proceeding before the learned Magistrate has eroded the Fundamental Right of the petitioner to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the proceeding in the fitness of thing should be quashed and the charge including the entire proceeding should be quashed.

(2.) Shri Susanta Banerjee, learned senior counsel (duly assisted by Abdul Hamid, Ashok Kumar Pandey and Sayandev Sengupta) appearing for the petitioner has strenuously submitted before this Court that the charge framed against the petitioner should be quashed including the entire proceeding simply of the ground that in a parallel forum the version of the prosecution has been disbelieved and was nugated and it was only apposite that the criminal prosecution should also be quashed. The main plinth of Shri Banerjee's argument reposed on this proposition.

(3.) Shri Banerjee took much pains to demonstrate his point with regard to the fact that since in the adjudication proceeding which was an offspring of the same set of action which has generated the initiation of the prosecution against the petitioner, having turned in favour of the petitioner; he was also liable to be exonerated from the prosecution as the Revenue's version was disbelieved which by necessary implication impleaded that the other part of actions before the Criminal Court would also be un-sustainable.