2002 (7) TMI 105 - HC - Customs

High Court Upholds Criminal Complaints, Rejects Quashing Petitions

The High Court declined to quash criminal complaints against manufacturers and exporters of finished leather goods despite Customs Tribunal findings ... Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Existence of Issues:1. Quashing of criminal complaints related to the export of finished leather goods.2. Applicability of findings by the Customs Tribunal on criminal proceedings.3. Validity of charges under IPC in connection with Customs Act offenses.4. Timing of filing petitions to discharge in criminal proceedings.5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in ongoing criminal cases.Analysis:1. The judgment involved three Criminal Original Petitions (Crl. O. Ps) filed by manufacturers and exporters of finished leather goods seeking to quash complaints related to the export of their products. The goods were seized by the Assistant Collector due to non-compliance with finished leather standards set by the Central Leather Research Institute. The Commissioner of Customs imposed penalties, which were later set aside by the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) based on technical grounds.2. The manufacturers argued that the findings of the Tribunal, which determined the goods were finished leather and not subject to confiscation, should be binding on the criminal court. They relied on legal precedents emphasizing the finality of Tribunal findings on factual matters. The defense contended that since the Tribunal's decision favored the accused, the criminal prosecution should be quashed.3. The defense further argued that the charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were consequential to the Customs Act offenses and should be dropped following the Tribunal's ruling. They maintained that the absence of intentional wrongdoing or evasion of duties negated the criminal charges, urging the High Court to intervene under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaints.4. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions, citing procedural grounds and the advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. Referring to legal precedent, the Prosecutor highlighted that the petitions to discharge should have been filed before the framing of charges, and once charges are framed, the case proceeds to either acquittal or conviction. The Prosecutor argued against the applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage of the proceedings.5. The High Court, while acknowledging the arguments presented, declined to quash the complaints at that juncture, emphasizing that intervening during the final stages of criminal proceedings could prejudice either party. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Court maintained that interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not warranted when the criminal case had progressed significantly. The Court dismissed the petitions, directing the petitioners to raise their points before the Trial Court for further consideration and orders on merit.