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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and process issued thereon could be quashed when the petitioners' settlement applications under the Customs Act were pending and the earlier rejection by the Settlement Commission had been set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
Analysis: The petitioners had approached the Settlement Commission after receipt of a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The Commission initially rejected the applications, but that order was subsequently set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded for fresh decision. The complaint before the Magistrate had been filed after the earlier rejection, but in view of the remand the foundation for continuing the prosecution no longer survived. The proceedings would become infructuous if the settlement applications were allowed, and even otherwise the complaint could not proceed while the settlement process remained pending.
Conclusion: The criminal complaint and the process issued in that complaint were liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the criminal prosecution was set aside, while liberty was reserved to initiate a fresh complaint if an adverse order were later passed by the Settlement Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: Where settlement proceedings under the Customs Act are pending or have been remanded for fresh adjudication, a criminal complaint founded on the earlier rejection of settlement cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed as premature.