Departmental exoneration does not bar criminal prosecution, and discharge is refused where prosecution material shows sufficient ground to presume conspiracy.

Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto require discharge or quashing of parallel criminal proceedings on the same facts, because departmental and criminal processes operate on different standards of proof; the criminal court must decide on the evidence before it, and departmental findings do not automatically erase criminal liability. At the discharge stage under Section 239 CrPC, the court examines only whether there is sufficient ground for presuming the offence, not whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed. The prosecution material, including seizure of foreign currency, non-declaration, and statements and video material suggesting illegal gratification, was held sufficient to raise strong suspicion of participation in criminal conspiracy. The refusal of discharge was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto entitles an accused to discharge or quashing of criminal proceedings based on the same facts; (ii) Whether the materials placed by the prosecution disclosed sufficient ground to proceed with the charge of criminal conspiracy and justified al of discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto entitles an accused to discharge or quashing of criminal proceedings based on the same facts.

Analysis: The legal position was settled by preferring the view that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution stand on different footing, especially because the standard of proof in a criminal case is higher and the criminal court must decide the matter on the evidence adduced before it. Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically erase criminal liability, though a case may arise for interference where the prosecution is founded solely on a finding that has been set aside in the relevant hierarchy. On the facts, the departmental exoneration did not by itself furnish a ground to terminate the criminal case.

Conclusion: Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto warrant discharge or quashing of the criminal prosecution; the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials placed by the prosecution disclosed sufficient ground to proceed with the charge of criminal conspiracy and justified refusal of discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the court is required to see whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that an offence has been committed, and not to conduct a mini trial or weigh the evidence as if at final adjudication. The prosecution relied on seizure of foreign currency from the petitioner, non-declaration of that currency, and statements and video material showing collection of illegal gratification by other customs officials. These materials were treated as enough to raise a strong suspicion of participation in the alleged conspiracy. The conspiracy charge could also be inferred from circumstances, since direct proof is rarely available.

Conclusion: The prosecution materials were sufficient to justify continuation of the proceedings and the refusal of discharge was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order refusing discharge failed, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically bar criminal prosecution on the same facts, and at the discharge stage the court must only determine whether the prosecution material discloses sufficient ground for presuming the offence, without undertaking a mini trial.

---