Back
KRISHNA MURARI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Vijay Kumar Ghai – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Murari, J.
The present Miscellaneous Application has been moved by the applicant- Amit Jalan along with the application seeking permission to file intervention.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant who is not a party to the proceedings in Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2022, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2022, is seeking clarification of the said order solely on the ground that the same may have a bearing on the case of the applicant.
3. From a perusal of pleadings, we find that three criminal prosecutions were launched by the Revenue Department under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the applicant which in turn were based upon three adjudication proceedings initiated by the department.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that in all the three adjudication proceedings, the issue has been decided finally in favour of the applicant by CESTAT. Still the criminal proceedings are continuing and in the light of the judgment dated 22.03.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2022, is liable to be quashed and in the light of the law laid down by this Court vide judgment dated 22.
Binding Precedent – Courts will not follow binding law declared by Supreme Court in case it is found that same is applicable to facts of a particular case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can quash criminal proceedings if the prosecution lacks prima facie evidence, the complaint is barred by limitation, and the prosecu....
Exoneration in departmental proceedings and adjudication proceedings can have a significant impact on the criminal prosecution, especially when the standard of proof required is different.
The principle that the same set of grounds raised to quash for the second time is not maintainable if they have already been considered and dismissed in the previous petition.
The main legal point established is the interpretation of 'at any previous stage of the case' under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. and its relevance to the pre-cognizance stage of the complaint.
The CESTAT has the authority to impose penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, and its findings of fact are binding unless shown to be perverse.
Prolonged pre-trial detention exceeding maximum sentence violates fundamental rights, necessitating quashing of proceedings.
The court affirmed that jurisdictional and evidentiary disputes must be resolved during trial, not at the discharge stage under PMLA.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
