AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is pertinent to mention that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 18th March, 2010 had discharged the petitioner on the ground that there was no possibility of conviction even if the prosecution case brought on record remained un-rebutted. 3. However, the Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 25th November, 2010 set aside the aforesaid discharge order and directed the parties to appear before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 06th December, 2010. Consequently, the present petition has been filed challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order. 4. The relevant facts of the present case are that the petitioner was intercepted on 26th September, 2001 at the IGI Air....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Joint Secretary, Government of India, the absence of knowledge was apparent from the statements made by the petitioner and his mother at the initial stage of seizure under Section 108 of the Act, 1962, as well as subsequent statement given by the prime accused Mr. Kuldeep Chopra under Section 108 of the Act, 1962. 9. Consequently, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, did not levy any penalty upon the petitioner. 10. The order passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India has not been challenged by the respondent and as such has attained finality. 11. Ms. Sangita Bhayana, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as he had no knowledge regarding the concealment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that her exoneration by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, had attained finality. 14. While quashing the proceedings qua the petitioner's mother, the learned Single Judge had rejected the respondent-Department's arguments with regard to Section 138A of the Act, 1962 by observing as under:- "19. A perusal of the aforesaid Section shows that it requires a culpable mental state of the accused. The Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. 20. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Joint Secretary to the Government of India has accepted the contention o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ental adjudication is on technical ground or by giving benefit of doubt and not on merits of the adjudication proceedings were on different facts, it would have no bearing on criminal proceedings. 23. In the instant case also the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue has exonerated the petitioner fully on the basis that the petitioner had no intention of smuggling or knowledge of the substances in the aforesaid two bottles. 24. Keeping in view, the view taken in Sunil Gulati & Anr.(supra), I am of the opinion, that the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court cannot go on, against the petitioner, since the petitioner has been fully exonerated by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, and sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of facts and circumstances, the criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue. The reason is obvious criminal complaint is filed by the departmental authorities alleging violation/contravention of the provisions of the Act on the part of the accused persons. However, if the departmental authorities themselves, in adjudication proceedings, record a categorical and unambiguous finding that there is no such contravention of the provisions of the Act, it would be unjust for such departmental authorities to continue with the criminal complaint and say that there is sufficient evidence to foist the accused persons with criminal liability when it is stated in the departmental proceedings that ex facie there is no such violation. The yardstic....