Departmental findings do not stay criminal prosecution; Madras HC refused to halt the trial despite pending CESTAT appeals.

Madras HC held that criminal proceedings need not be stayed merely because related excise rebate appeals were pending before the CESTAT. It applied the settled principle that departmental or quasi-judicial proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in different fields and are governed by different standards of proof. A favourable finding in the appellate forum on the departmental dispute does not, by itself, justify quashing or staying the criminal case, which must be decided on the evidence before the criminal court. The prayer to stay the criminal trial was rejected, and the criminal case was directed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court should be stayed pending disposal of the appeals before the CESTAT.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that departmental or quasi-judicial proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in different fields and are decided on different standards of proof. Exoneration or a favourable finding in the departmental appellate forum does not, by itself, justify quashing or staying the criminal case. The criminal trial must proceed on the evidence adduced before the criminal court, independently of the excise rebate dispute pending before the CESTAT.

Conclusion: The prayer to stay the criminal proceedings was rejected, and the criminal case was directed to continue. The CESTAT was also directed to dispose of the pending appeals within a stipulated time.

---