Departmental findings do not bar excise prosecution where the complaint itself discloses alleged offences.

A departmental finding that the fourth accused was not a related person of the first accused did not bar the criminal complaint for excise-related suppression, misdeclaration of price lists and duty evasion. The Court held that, for quashing under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint must be examined on its face to see whether it discloses the alleged offences, and findings in departmental proceedings do not bind the criminal court or operate as acquittal or estoppel. On that basis, the prior appellate departmental order was not treated as a bar, and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier departmental finding that the fourth accused was not a related person of the first accused barred the criminal complaint and justified quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint alleged suppression of the relationship between two partnership concerns, misdeclaration of price lists, and evasion of central excise duty. The Court held that the test for quashing is whether the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, disclose the offences alleged. It further held that findings in departmental proceedings do not bind the criminal court and do not operate as a verdict of acquittal or as an estoppel against prosecution. The earlier order of the Appellate Collector was therefore not treated as a bar to the criminal complaint.

Conclusion: The earlier departmental finding did not bar the prosecution, and the petition for quashing was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The criminal complaint was allowed to proceed, as the Court found no ground to invoke inherent jurisdiction to terminate the prosecution at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental determination on related-person status does not preclude criminal prosecution where the complaint, on its own allegations, discloses the commission of excise offences.

---