KRIPAL MOHON VIRMANI Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner Kripal Mohan Virmani has sought quashing of the proceeding of Case No.C/173 of 1987 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. It has been alleged inter alia in the application that a petition of complaint under sections 21, 23, 29 and 30 of the Nacrotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and under section 135A of the Customs Act was filed by B.D.Misra, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi against the petitioner and one Subhas Chandra Narang both of New Delhi in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereupon the said complaint was registered as Case No.267/1. As per the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner, the officers of Preventive Collectorate, West Bengal intercepted one truck bearing No. DEL 3124 carrying machinery items from Delhi to Calcutta meant for export to Saudi Arabia and U.K. and there was recovery of 743 Kgs. of Hashish from the said truck and in the follow-up action a farmhouse in New Delhi was searched on 13th July, 1986 wherefrom certain incriminating documents were seized apart from some gunny bags and 11 tins containing Hashish wherefrom 976 Kgs. of Hashish had been recovered. On examination of the machinery a further quantity of 365 Kgs. of Hashish had been recovered. The total quantum of Hashish recovered was 2084 Kgs. valued at Rs.84 lakhs in Indian markets and at Rs.84 crores in international markets. The profit out of the smuggling business is alleged to have been distributed amongst one S.P.Rao, S.Malhotra and Harnam Singh. As alleged, invoice of the consignment was signed by one Narendra Kumar and the petitioner was involved in the transaction and one Subhas Chandra Narang was involved by the petitioner in the smuggling and all the accused are alleged to have committed the offences under the provisions of the said Act and the Customs Act. The petitioner was arrested and subsequently released on bail by Delhi High Court on 20th December, 1990 in Crl.M(M) Case No.2989/90. The case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of Session whereupon the charges under sections 29, 20(11). 23 and 30 of the said Act and under section 135A of the Customs Act were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi against the petitioner and the co-accused Subhas Chander Narang.

(2.) It is the grievance of the petitioner that on the identical facts and transactions a separate complaint under sections 28, 20, 22 and 23 of the said Act and under section 135A of the Customs Act was lodged by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal and Calcutta before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta and the said complaint was based on the same facts which formed the subject-matter of the complaint in case No. 267/1 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the allegations contained in the petition of complaint which has been registered as C/173 of 1987 in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta are identical with the allegations made in the complaint in Case No.267/1 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and continuance of the said proceeding in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta amounts to abuse of process of the Court since on identical set of facts two parallel proceedings are not maintainable in law and as such proceeding of case No.C/173/87 pending against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is liable to be quashed. The present petitioner was accused No.6 in the said case.

(3.) Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, pendency of Cease No.C/173/ 87 in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta the petitioner has filed the instant application averring inter alia that the said proceeding being violative of section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is liable to be quashed and continuance of such proceeding is abuse of process of the Court.