2002 (7) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... leather; when they were sent to the Central Leather Research Institute, it found that the same were not "finished leather" according to the standards fixed by them. Therefore, the containers containing leathers were seized. W.P.No. 18356/97 was filed by the manufacturers and the goods were taken delivery of on deposit of 5% of the value of the goods. Thereafter, the Collector, Customs levied the penalty and fine which was equivalent to the value of the goods. The Commissioner of Customs also came to the conclusion based upon the opinion of the Central Leather Research Institute that the goods were not finished leather. Against that, the manufacturers filed an appeal to Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). CEGAT acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leather and therefore, set aside the order of confiscation imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. Hence, this finding that the goods were not unfinished has to be accepted by the Trial Court and it is binding upon the Criminal Court. Therefore, there is no need for the petitioners herein to face the prosecution even after the decision rendered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners have a right to approach this Court under 482 Cr.P.C. 6.The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the charges that are framed against the petitioners are under Section 420 read 511, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 132, 114 of the Customs Act. The learned Senior Counsel submits that I.P.C. offences are only consequential of offences under Customs Act. Once the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the learned Special Public Prosecutor pointed out a decision in Amar Chand Agarwala v. Shanti Bose and Another (1973 Crl.L.J. 577) wherein it has been held as follows : "Where the accused moved the High Court at the time when the trial was almost committing to a close and what remained to be done was the examination of two prosecution and one Court witnesses and the High Court quashed the charge and the entire proceedings on the grounds that the complainant suppressed material facts and that the evidence on record did not establish the alleged offence, the order was liable to be set aside. The proper course at that stage to be adopted by the High Court was to allow the proceedings to go on and to come to its logical conclusion, one way ....