TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh admitted the recovery and seizure of gold and named other persons involved in the incident. Varyam Singh, inter alia, disclosed the name of one Pramod Kumar i.e. the respondent herein who invested the money with him in the seized gold as well as the gold smuggled on earlier occasions. (B) Varyam Singh further stated that on 6.07.1996, Ranbeer Singh and he went to Dubai where the respondent delivered two packets of gold; that they went to Frankfurt; that in the flight from Frankfurt to Delhi with the help of Ranbeer Singh, he put both the packets in dry ice trays and as per prearrangement these packets were to be removed and delivered to him near Moti Bagh Gurudwara by the catering staff and that he had agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- for this job to that person; that he had to hand over this gold to the respondent and in return he was to get Rs. 2,00,000/- out of the profit; that his share of investment in the gold seized on 9.7.1996 was Rs.Thirty Two lacs and that the balance was invested by the respondent. He admitted that earlier he had gone to Frankfurt via Dubai and come back to Delhi on six occasions and brought gold in the same manner. The authorities recorded the statement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was of the view that there were two persons having same name i.e. Pramod Kumar, one in Dubai and the second being the respondent and that beyond the statement of the co-accused there was no material on record. During the course of this order it was observed as under:- "If the investment was made by Shri Pramod Kumar of Dubai, then it cannot be linked to the appellant. The department has not made Shri Pramod Kumar of Dubai a party in the case and nothing is on record to suggest that efforts were made to trace and identify Shri Pramod Kumar of Dubai and how the telephone number in Dubai i.e. 531228 is linked to the appellant. Thus there is only the lone statement of Shri Varyam Singh alleging the involvement of the appellant and is not corroborated by the statement of any other person or by any documentary evidence. On the other hand the claim of the appellant that he had left India on 06.09.1994 and since then he has not visited India again is corroborated by the statements of various persons tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 and also by documentary evidence i.e. copies of his passports. No other person involved in the case has mentioned anything a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Article 20(2) of the Constitution as against accused 1 and 2 in that case by reason of the decision of the Collector of Customs in the proceedings under the Sea Customs Act? (ii) Whether under any circumstance the finding of the Collector of Customs that the 1st and 2nd accused are not proved to be guilty operated as in issue estoppel in the criminal case against those accused?" 5. The observations of the court in respect of aforesaid questions were as under:- "8...... The rule laid down in that decision was adopted by this Court in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, and again in N.R. Ghose v. State of W.B. But before an accused can call into aid the above rule, he must establish that in a previous lawful trial before a competent court, he has secured a verdict of acquittal which verdict is binding on his prosecutor. In the instant case for the reasons already mentioned, we are unable to hold that the proceeding before the Collector of Customs is a criminal trial. From this it follows that the decision of the Collector does not amount to a verdict of acquittal in favour of accused 1 and 2." 6. A subsequent three-Judge Bench in K.G. Premshankar v. Inspec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under the Act. C.K. Prasad J., speaking for the majority summed up as under:- "38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:- (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding: If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and (viii) In case of exoneration, howe....