Double jeopardy does not arise from departmental exoneration, and criminal charges may still proceed on prima facie material.

Departmental adjudication is not equivalent to a criminal prosecution or acquittal, so prior exoneration in customs proceedings did not trigger double jeopardy or issue estoppel. The High Court held that Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC apply only after a prior prosecution and conviction, acquittal, or equivalent determination by a competent criminal court. Since the trial court had complaint and witness material sufficient to assess a prima facie case at the charge stage, the revisional challenge to framing of charge under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act was rejected and the revision dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional challenge to the framing of charge under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could succeed on the ground that the departmental proceedings had already resulted in exoneration of the applicants, thereby attracting double jeopardy or issue estoppel.

Analysis: The departmental order of the Commissioner did not amount to a criminal prosecution or a trial by a court of competent jurisdiction. The protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and the corresponding rule under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only where there has been a prior prosecution and conviction or acquittal by a competent criminal court. The Court also held that the trial court had before it the complaint and witness material sufficient to assess a prima facie case at the stage of charge, and the prior departmental exoneration did not bar continuation of the criminal proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the framing of charge was rejected, and the revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Departmental adjudication is not equivalent to a criminal prosecution or acquittal, and therefore does not bar a subsequent criminal trial under the principle of double jeopardy or issue estoppel.

---