Customs prosecution cannot continue after departmental exoneration on the same facts and evidence.

Criminal prosecution under the Customs Act cannot be sustained where the competent customs authority has, on the same facts and evidence, already exonerated the person of smuggling. The adjudicating authority had found no material to show that the petitioner was a smuggler or carrier, and had set aside the penalty and confiscation. Because the criminal complaint rested on that same factual foundation, continuing the prosecution would proceed on a charge already negatived in departmental adjudication. The complaint was therefore liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal prosecution under the Customs Act could continue after the petitioner had been exonerated in adjudication on the same set of facts.

Analysis: The petitioner had been proceeded against for non-declaration and alleged smuggling of gold and foreign currency. The customs adjudicating authority had already held that there was nothing to indicate that he was a smuggler or a carrier and that the charge of smuggling could not be sustained, thereby setting aside the penalty and confiscation. The complaint for offences under the Customs Act was founded on the same facts and evidence. In such circumstances, continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to proceeding on a charge that had already been negatived on the material before the departmental appellate authority.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not maintainable and the complaint was liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent customs authority has, on the same facts and evidence, exonerated a person of smuggling and the alleged criminal liability rests on that very foundation, criminal prosecution cannot be sustained.

---