Confiscation proceedings do not automatically bar criminal prosecution where the evidence and standards of proof differ.

Pendency of confiscation proceedings or an appeal against confiscation under the Central Excise Act does not, by itself, bar criminal prosecution. The criminal case and departmental confiscation proceedings operate in different spheres and are governed by different standards of proof. A stay may be considered where the departmental and criminal matters rest on the same facts and evidence, but that principle does not apply unless identical evidence is shown. On the stated record, the evidence before the Tribunal and the prosecution evidence were not established to be the same, so quashing or staying the criminal proceedings was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under the Central Excise Act should be quashed or stayed because an appeal against confiscation based on the same allegations was pending.

Analysis: The pendency of confiscation proceedings or the appeal arising from them does not by itself bar criminal prosecution. The two proceedings operate in different spheres and are governed by different standards of proof. A stay may be considered in some cases where departmental proceedings and the criminal case rest on the same facts and evidence, but that principle does not control a request to halt criminal prosecution merely because confiscation proceedings are pending. The record did not establish that the evidence before the Tribunal and the prosecution evidence were the same.

Conclusion: The request to quash or stay the criminal proceedings was rejected, and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of confiscation proceedings or an appeal against confiscation does not, by itself, justify quashing or staying criminal prosecution, particularly where the two proceedings are not shown to rest on identical evidence.

---