Exoneration in adjudication proceedings under the Gold Control Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962 does not bar criminal prosecution for the same offence.

( 1 ) SEEKING to quash the proceedings of case No. C-167 of 1990 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta and for setting aside the Order dated July 20, 2000 passed by the said learned Magistrate thereby framing a charge under section 85 (i) (ii) (a) 85 (i) (iii) (a)/ 85 (i) (iv) (a) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and under section 135 (i) (b) (i) of the customs Act, 1962 against the aforesaid petitioner, this application has been taken out on several grounds. Principal amongst them relate to demolition of part cause of action of the Revenue before the Appellate Authority where the Appeal preferred against the adjudication Order by the Revenue was dismissed; exoneration in one forum i. e. , the Adjudication Authority being the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive); the Criminal prosecution arising out of the same incident was also liable to fail; the petitioner has been facing the agony of the case since March, 1990 which has resulted in the proceeding being oppressive and harassive in nature; such long pendency of the proceeding before the learned Magistrate has eroded the Fundamental Right of the petitioner to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the proceeding in the fitness of thing should be quashed and the charge including the entire proceeding should be quashed.

( 2 ) SHRI Susanta Banerjee, learned senior counsel (duly assisted by Abdul Hamid, Ashok Kumar Pandey and Sayandev Sengupta) appearing for the petitioner has strenuously submitted before this Court that the charge framed against the petitioner should be quashed including the entire proceeding simply of the ground that in a parallel forum the version of the prosecution has been disbelieved and was nugated and it was only apposite that the criminal prosecution should also be quashed. The main plinth of Shri Banerjee's argument reposed on this proposition.

( 3 ) SHRI Banerjee took much pains to demonstrate his point with regard to the fact that since in the adjudication proceeding which was an offspring of the same set of action which has generated the initiation of the prosecution against the petitioner, having turned in favour of the petitioner; he was also liable to be exonerated from the prosecution as the Revenue's version was disbelieved which by necessary implication impleaded that the other part of actions before the Criminal Court would also be un-sustainable.

( 4 ) SHRI Banerjee, however, has also argued other ancillary points with regard to the delay, in the long pendency of the prosection and as also that the prosecution case could not establish sufficient materials to sustain the impugned charge and as such, the delay has caused a deleterious effect on the petitioner since the last eleven years.

( 5 ) AS a part of his submission Shri Banerjee has copiously referred to the various provisions of the Customs Act and also the Gold Control Act and has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G. L. Didwania and Another v. Income Tax Officer and Another reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 724 on the proposition that where the finding of the appellate Tribunal was conclusive the prosecution could not be sustained. Thereafter, he also relied on another decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1982 Income Tax Report Vol. 133, page 909 in the case of Uttam Chand and Others v. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar on the similar pro-position.

( 6 ) SHRI Banerjee thereafter relied on another decision of the apex Court in the case of P. S. Rajya v. State of Bihar reported in 1996 SCC (Cri.) 897 to substantiate his point that exoneration in departmental proceeding on indentical charge will also entitle the accused for exoneration before the Criminal Court.

( 7 ) LASTLY, Shri Banerjee relied on the decision of Rajesh Kothari and another v. A. S. Bandopadhyay, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) reported in (2001) 1 Cal. LT 486 (HC) wherein a le