Abuse of process in customs prosecution after favourable departmental findings can justify quashing the criminal charge.

A criminal prosecution under the Customs Act may be quashed as an abuse of process where departmental confiscation proceedings on the same facts, initiated by the same authority, have already concluded in favour of the accused. The prior departmental finding under Section 111 was not an absolute legal bar to prosecution, but the court held that launching a criminal case on the same material after such a favourable departmental outcome was improper. The charge under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act was quashed. The parallel proceeding under the Gold (Control) Act was not found objectionable and was allowed to continue according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a criminal prosecution under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act could be sustained after the departmental confiscation proceedings on the same facts had ended in favour of the accused.

Analysis: The prior departmental determination under Section 111 of the Customs Act was not treated as an absolute legal bar to prosecution. However, where the department itself had initiated and concluded proceedings on the same facts in favour of the accused, launching a criminal prosecution on the same material was held to be an improper use of the process of law. The charge under the Customs Act was therefore liable to be quashed. The continuation of the proceeding under the Gold (Control) Act was not found objectionable and was permitted to proceed according to law.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act was quashed, while the prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act was allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal prosecution on the same facts may be quashed as an abuse of process where departmental proceedings initiated by the same authority have already ended in favour of the accused, even though such departmental outcome is not an absolute legal bar to prosecution.

---