2009 (7) TMI 724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the file of Addl. C.J.M., Bangalore wherein the process was ordered against the respondents for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act. 3. The petitioner/authority had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr. P.C for an offence punishable under Section 135 of Customs Act. The order of issue of summons was called in question before this court by the respondent on the ground that the criminal prosecution is not maintainable in view of the order passed by the Customs Tribunal. It is also contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents did not enure to the benefits of the respondents nor it will affect the rights of the department to prosecute the petitioner. 4. This court ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er erred in holding that the appellants viz., Chiramath Precision (India) imported duty free raw materials and clandestinely diverted the same to Chirag Enterprises and Tavadec Industries Pvt. Ltd., (in the guise of high generation of waste) as against the purpose for which the same were imported, without technically verifying the same. On the contrary, Chiramith Precision (India) have produced a report certified by the Regional Engineering College, Suratkal about the percentage of scrap generated during the course of manufacture of various components. (v) As no confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 of any imported goods is being upheld, imposition of penalty under Section 112 called for and are required to be set aside. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the continuance of criminal proceedings against the accused would amount to abuse of process of law and it would be in the interest of justice, if this court should exercise inherent power and allow the petition. Accordingly, this court felt that the continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and in the ends of justice this court by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Cr. P.C has quashed the proceedings. 7. Sri Urval N. Ramanand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this petition is not for review, it is only for recalling. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 Sc 1605 in the matter of Mosst. Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukerje....