The exoneration of the Accused in adjudication proceedings on the same set of allegations as in the criminal trial can be considered an abuse of the process of the court if the contravention of the provisions of the act is not established.

JUDGMENT

Nitin W Sambre, J. - The Central Bureau of Investigations has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court questioning the order passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court, at Mapusa, Goa in Special Case No. 29/2013/D passed on 28.03.2014, thereby discharging the Accused nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The case of the Applicant against the Accused persons in the final report presented under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is as under :

The Accused no.1 was at the relevant time working as Superintendent of Central Excise, Vasco Range, Goa and Accused no.2 was working as Inspector of Central Excise, Vasco Range, under the Accused no.1. The Accused no. 3 is the proprietor of M/s. Globle Fashion, the Accused no.4 is the proprietor of M/s. Welspin & Branded Impex, the Accused no.5 is the Manager of Welspin and Branded Impex and Accused no.6, the proprietor of M/s. K. D. Impex.

3. The Accused nos. 4 and 5 are having factory at Sancoale Industrial Estate, Goa and are claimed to be manufacturers of the garments whereas the Accused no.3 is having factory at plot no. 50, Sancoale Industrial Estate, Goa, and is involved in the manufacture and export of garments.

4. The Accused no.3 obtained nine DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) licenses against eight exports from the office of Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Goa. Eight exports were carried out to the firms in Zambia and Dubai.

5. The ninth consignment meant for export packed in a container was intercepted and examined by Superintendent of Customs, Hyderabad on 27th March, 2004. In the said ninth consignment, it was found to contain pieces of cloth; except for, in four cartoons which were verified by the Accused nos. 1 and 2. As such, it is noticed that the pieces described by the exporter i.e. Accused no.3 onwards in the declaration as "ladies nightwear", were in fact pieces of cloths irregular in shape and in any case cannot be described as "ladies nightwear" and, as such, were not qualifying the eligibility of the DEPB benefits referred above.

6. As such, an investigation was carried out in the matter in which it was revealed that the manufacturer and the exporter i.e. Accused no.4 onwards, made an attempt to export under four shipping bill nos.2952 to 2955 dated 17.03.2004. The Accused nos. 1 and 2 abused their official position in the capacity of public servant by conniving with Accused nos. 3 to 6 and has signed ARE-2 forms and other documents for Accused nos. 4 and 5.

As such, the allegations are, an attempt was made to export sub- standard material without issuance of CT- 1 form and without issuance of Modal Examination order by the Jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner.

7. In the aforesaid background, the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, in adjudication proceedings arising out of the aforesaid export under Section 144 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, has made an observation that there was dereliction of duty on the part of Accused nos. 1 and 2. It further observed that it was not proved that there are some extraneous considerations for their actions. In exercise of powers under Section 114 of the Customs Act, the Accused nos.1 and 2 were saddled with penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and 15,000/- respectively. The Commissioner of Customs, in the said adjudication order dated 04.07.2005, had declared that the goods under the above referred four shipping bills, were made from 100% polyester filament yarn, are substandard junk cloth pieces i.e. rags. He further rejected the declared value of the goods by the exporter, re-determining the value of the goods under the export under Section 14 of the Customs Act. A Further order of disallowing the Central Excise rebate and DEPB credit was also passed. An Order of confiscation of the goods under Section 113(d) and 118(b) of the Customs Act was also made.

8. It appears that Accused nos. 1 and 2, feeling aggrieved, preferred an Appeal No. C-377/2005 an