2016 (2) TMI 479 - SC - Customs

Higher bench rules prior exoneration not merits-based innocence; quashing of Complaint No.66/1/96 set aside, prosecution restored.

Air Customs Officer IGI New Delhi Versus Pramod Kumar Dhamija

The SC held that the respondent's exoneration in prior adjudication did not amount to a merits-based finding of complete innocence, and the HC erred in ... Smuggling of gold - exoneration of the respondent in the adjudication proceedings - It was submitted on behalf of the Department that the respondent had not joined investigation and as such the instant petition did not deserve any consideration and that there were not two Pramod Kumars but only one person having two addresses. The High Court by its judgment and order under appeal, allowed the petition and quashed Complaint No.66/1/96 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. - Held that:- it cannot be accepted that the exoneration of the respondent in the adjudication proceeding was on merits or that he was found completely innocent. - High Court was not right and justified in accepting the prayer for quashing of the proceedings - Proceedings to continue against the respondent. Issues Involved:1. Recovery and seizure of gold biscuits.2. Statements and involvement of accused persons.3. Prosecution and adjudication proceedings.4. Exoneration in adjudication proceedings and its effect on criminal prosecution.5. High Court's quashing of the criminal complaint.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Recovery and Seizure of Gold Biscuits:On 09.07.1996, AIR Customs Officers at IGI Airport, New Delhi, recovered and seized 184 gold biscuits weighing 21454.400 grams valued at Rs. 1,09,84,652/- from meal trolleys of a Lufthansa Airlines flight from Frankfurt to Delhi. The gold was concealed by two passengers, Varyam Singh and Ranbir Singh, who admitted the recovery and seizure in their statements and named other persons involved, including the respondent, Pramod Kumar, who allegedly invested in the seized gold and other smuggling activities.2. Statements and Involvement of Accused Persons:Varyam Singh disclosed that he and Ranbeer Singh went to Dubai on 06.07.1996, where the respondent delivered two packets of gold. They traveled to Frankfurt and concealed the gold in dry ice trays on the flight to Delhi. The gold was to be delivered near Moti Bagh Gurudwara by the catering staff for a payment of Rs. 50,000/-. Varyam Singh was to hand over the gold to the respondent and receive Rs. 2,00,000/- from the profit. His share of investment was Rs. 32 lacs, with the balance invested by the respondent. Despite numerous summons, the respondent did not cooperate with the investigation and remained in hiding.3. Prosecution and Adjudication Proceedings:The Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, sanctioned the prosecution of the respondent and others on 04.09.1996, leading to the filing of Complaint No. 66/1/96 in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi. The respondent was declared a 'proclaimed offender.' Adjudication proceedings were initiated, and the Additional Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 15 lacs on the respondent on 30.09.1999. The order noted that the respondent's brother, Kanwar Bhan, admitted that the respondent might have used his mobile phone to call Varyam Singh.4. Exoneration in Adjudication Proceedings and Its Effect on Criminal Prosecution:The respondent appealed the penalty, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) set aside the penalty on 25.01.2008, noting that there were two persons named Pramod Kumar and that there was no material linking the respondent to the smuggling activities beyond the statement of Varyam Singh. The appellate authority found the respondent's claim that he had not visited India since 06.09.1994 credible, supported by statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act and documentary evidence. The exoneration in adjudication proceedings was the basis for the respondent's petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.5. High Court's Quashing of the Criminal Complaint:The High Court of Delhi quashed Complaint No. 66/1/96, reasoning that the evidence against the respondent was the same as that before the appellate authority, which had exonerated him. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the exoneration in adjudication proceedings does not necessarily preclude criminal prosecution. The Court highlighted that adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent, and exoneration on technical grounds does not bar prosecution. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings, as the exoneration was not on merits and the respondent was not found completely innocent.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decision, and directed that Case No. 66/1/96 on the file of the ACMM, New Delhi, proceed in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that the exoneration in adjudication proceedings did not preclude criminal prosecution, especially when the exoneration was not on merits.