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 long pendency of the criminal proceeding and alleged harassment justified quashing of the charge. (ii) Whether exoneration in departmental adjudication barred prosecution and trial under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, including on the ground of double jeopardy.
Issue (i): Whether long pendency of the criminal proceeding and alleged harassment justified quashing of the charge.
Analysis: The proceeding had reached the stage of framing of charge only in 2000, and the revisional challenge was filed immediately thereafter. The delay was therefore not treated as a ground to abort the trial at that stage, and the plea of harassment was held incapable of being accepted once the accused had already been arraigned to face the charge.
Conclusion: The plea based on delay and harassment was rejected and did not warrant quashing.
Issue (ii): Whether exoneration in departmental adjudication barred prosecution and trial under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, including on the ground of double jeopardy.
Analysis: The penal provisions under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were treated as operating independently of adjudication and confiscation proceedings. The Court relied on the opening non obstante or without prejudice language of the penal provisions and distinguished income-tax cases where section 279(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 created a statutory link between penalty relief and prosecution. It further held that adjudication leading to civil consequences did not amount to an offence for purposes of article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, and that the doctrine of double jeopardy was therefore inapplicable. The contrary view in the cited customs case was not accepted.
Conclusion: Exoneration in adjudication did not bar the criminal prosecution, and the double jeopardy plea failed.
Final Conclusion: The application for quashing was rejected, and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute makes penal prosecution independent of adjudication by using a without prejudice clause, an exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution, and civil adjudication cannot be equated with prosecution for the purpose of article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
TaxTMI 
