Independent departmental adjudication upheld despite criminal acquittal where recovery of gold was supported by seizure evidence and witnesses.

Recovery of gold from the appellant's person was upheld because the seizure was effected after a customs sepoy detected a hard object tied to the waist, and the search was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses; objections to the panchnama and witness credibility were not substantiated. The appellant's acquittal in the criminal case did not bar departmental adjudication, as criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings operate independently. The acquittal therefore did not nullify the evidence supporting confiscation and penalty, which were sustained on the material before the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recovery of gold from the appellant was discredited by the evidence and surrounding circumstances; (ii) Whether the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case barred departmental penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the recovery of gold from the appellant was discredited by the evidence and surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The gold was recovered from the appellant's person after a customs sepoy noticed something hard tied to his waist and he was searched in the presence of panch witnesses. The objections raised against the panchnama and the panch witnesses were not accepted, as there was no material to show hostility or reason for false implication. The challenge to the recovery was therefore not established.

Conclusion: The recovery of gold from the appellant was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case barred departmental penalty.

Analysis: The acquittal in the criminal prosecution did not determine the departmental adjudication. Criminal proceedings and adjudication proceedings operate independently, and the acquittal did not wipe out the evidence supporting confiscation and penalty in the present matter.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not affect the departmental confiscation and penalty.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were sustained and the appeal failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude departmental adjudication where the evidence independently supports confiscation and penalty.

---