TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable when an efficacious revisional remedy was available against the order dismissing the discharge petition; (ii) Whether the criminal prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 could be quashed on the ground that the earlier adjudication order had been set aside and the matter had been remanded, despite the later restoration of confiscation on de novo adjudication.
Issue (i): Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable when an efficacious revisional remedy was available against the order dismissing the discharge petition.
Analysis: The dismissal of the discharge petition was treated as a revisable order and not as an interlocutory order. The availability of a specific remedy by way of revision was held to exclude resort to the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly when no revision had been filed against the order of the trial court.
Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not maintainable on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the criminal prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 could be quashed on the ground that the earlier adjudication order had been set aside and the matter had been remanded, despite the later restoration of confiscation on de novo adjudication.
Analysis: The earlier adjudication order had been set aside with remand, but the adjudicating authority thereafter passed a de novo order confirming confiscation and imposing penalty, and the appellate proceedings culminated in dismissal for non-compliance with the predeposit direction. In that situation, the confiscation order stood restored. The court also applied the principle that adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent and may proceed simultaneously; exoneration in adjudication would bar prosecution only where it is on merits and the person is held innocent, which was not the position here.
Conclusion: The criminal prosecution was not liable to be quashed and could continue.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the prosecution failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the criminal case was allowed to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional remedy is available against a revisable order, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should not ordinarily be invoked, and criminal prosecution may continue notwithstanding adjudicatory proceedings when the adjudicatory order is restored and the proceedings are independent.
TaxTMI 
