TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Excise, Hyderabad. 2.The facts germane to this case may be stated briefly as follows : A1 to A3 in the case are said to have carried gold from Sharjah to Hyderabad. According to the Customs authorities, as it was not declared and as after its disclosure the duty in foreign exchange was not paid in respect of the said gold, it was liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The petitioner herein who are accused nos. 4 and 5 are said to have abetted the offence committed by A1 to A3 in as much as they were in unauthorized possession of foreign currency which they proposed to make available to A1 to A3 for payment of customs duty. It is alleged that under these circumstances, the foreign currency notes are also l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere remains nothing to require the accused to face in the criminal trial where far stricter standards of proof are required. 6.In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the Petitioners Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy draw sustenance from some judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of S.K. Singal & Another - [1987 (30) E.L.T. 900 (Del.) = (1987) 32 DLT 91 (Delhi)] and other judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Willi Lemback v. Rajan Mathur & Another [XI-1992 (3) Crimes 692] in which the earlier mentioned case (1st cited supra) has been referred to. In S.K. Sinha's case (1st cited supra), the following observations are relevant : "In criminal matters the degree of proof required is far more strict. If the departmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioners, they would then be in a position to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings. 9.On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Customs and Excise Department Sri Gopalakrishna contends that this view of the Delhi High Court goes contrary to the view expressed by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Customs Collector, Bombay v. L.R. Melwani [1999 (110) E.L.T. 317 (S.C.) = AIR 1970 SC 962] and neither stay of the proceedings nor quashing of the proceedings could be ordered under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.In the case of L. R. Melwani (3rd cited supra), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with somewhat similar contention based on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an accused person to establish that he had been tried by a 'court of competent jurisdiction' for an offence and he is convicted or acquitted of that offence and the said conviction or acquittal is in force. If that much is established, it can be contended that he is not liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made convicted under Section 236 or for which he might have been under Section 273. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that adjudication before a Collector of Customs is not a 'prosecution' nor the Collector of Customs a 'Court'." 12.The Supreme Court also considered the question whether the findings of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar higher standard of proof than the one required in adjudication proceedings and when adjudication proceedings themselves have failed, there is scarcely any chance of criminal prosecution resulting in conviction of the accused. The conviction is that when there is hardly any chance of prosecution resulting in conviction of the accused, it would be a futile exercise to contitue the prosecution and to secure ends of justice, such proceedings in prosecution must be quashed. In fact, that is the premise on which the judgments of the Delhi High Court proceeds. 15.In the light of the very categoric judgment of the Supreme Court, this contention cannot be accepted. Acceptance of this contention would go against the spirit of the judgment of th....