NARSHIM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears on behalf of the petitioners either to press this application or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Mrs Archana Sinha, Junior Standing Counsel to Sr. Standing Counsel for Customs Department appears on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2.

(2.) The three petitioners, who were made accused in a Custom Case for commission of offence under Section 11 of the Customs Act, have approached this Court by way of invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was prayed to quash the entire criminal proceeding started against them for their punishment under Section 135 of the Customs Act in Complaint Case No. 14/94 dated 22.11.1994 in the Customs Case No. 26/88 pending in the court of Presiding Officer, Economic Offence Court, Muzaffarpur. The petitioners were apprehended while they were smuggling contrabanned goods for an amount of Rs. 20 lacs. From the conscious possession of petitioners 17 bullock carts loaded with 299 packages of polyester Testerised yarn valued Rs. 19,56,960/-, 17 carts and 34 male buffaloes together valued Rs. 51,000/-, total valued Rs. 20 lacs and odd were recovered. In the petition, the main ground for quashing of the proceeding in the present case was that the confiscation proceeding, which was also initiated in respect of seized articles, has come to an end in petitioners' favour. The Collector, Customs had passed a confiscation order against the petitioners and thereafter they rushed to the Court of Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Calcutta and filed an appeal before the said Tribunal and the Calcutta Bench allowed their appeal and exonerated them from the confiscation proceedings. On the ground of their exoneration from the confiscation proceeding, the plea, as appears from the petition, has been taken that on the same set of evidence, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted by the Court of Economic Offences, Muzaffarpur.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 has opposed the prayer and submits that confiscation proceeding as well as criminal proceeding are two different proceedings and only on the ground of exoneration from the confiscation proceeding they cannot be exonerated from the criminal charges.