The order passed in the adjudication proceeding or the order passed in the appeal cannot be a ground for quashing the instant proceeding, as the materials for consideration and the areas of operation are separate and distinct.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, Bishnu Agarwala, by filing the instant application under section 397/401 read with section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code sought for quashing of the proceeding being Case No. SLP 24/03 arising out of CBI/acb/kolkata Case No. RCCAA 20030043 dated 30. 10. 2003, now pending before the learned Court of Special Judge, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner, thus, sought for quashing of charge-sheet No. 21/2006 dated 24. 4. 2006 under section 120b/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13 (l) (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

( 3 ) THE grievances of the said petitioner, as ventilated by the learned senior Counsel, Mr. Ajit Panja, may briefly be stated as follows: on the basis of First Information Rqport, dated 30. 10. 2003, lodged by the superintendent, of Police, CBI, Kolkata, the aforesaid case against the petitioner and eighteen others including nine officials of the Customs department was started.

( 4 ) IT was alleged that all those accused persons as well as others, not known, entered into a criminal conspinacy among themselves and others to cheat the Government of India and in pursuance of that the nine accused persons, who are customs officials being public servants while on duty in respective capacity at Petrapole Land Customs Station on Indo-Bangladesh border, Petropole, 24-Parganas (N), West Bengal, committed criminal misconduct by showing unque favour by way of certifying and authenticating shipping bills of FIR names accused Nos. 10 to 14 representing the firms being FIR named accused Nos. 16 to 19 containing false details of consignment not exported though the Petrapole Land Customs Station on Indo-Bangladesh border, Petrapole to Bangladesh and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, fir named accused Nos. 10 to 14 representing firms being accused Nos. 16 to 19 submitted through accused No. . 15 the said shipping bills containing false and fabricated export documents relating to shipping bills and obtained export benefits under DEPB Scheme thereby causing wrongful loss to the extent of about Rs. 4. 50 crores to the Government of India during the year 2002-2003.

( 5 ) IT was alleged that during the period 2002-2003, as many as 92 false and fabricated bills were submitted through FIR named accused No. 15 to the

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive Department) of Kolkata for drawing benefits under the DEPB scheme.

( 6 ) IT was further alleged that in respect of 25 out of 92 shipping bills, the exporters, being FIR named accused Nos. 10 to 14 of the firm Nos. 16 to 19, in collusion with accused No. l5 submitted shipping bills containing false and fabricated entries made and authenticated by means of signatures by the FIR named accused Nos. l to 9 respectively in pursuance of criminal conspiracy to the effect as if that the consignments shown in the fabricated shipping bills were exported by lorry numbers indicated in the respective shipping bills and cleared through petrapole land customs station on Indo-Bangladesh Border, West Bengal to Bangladesh. It was also alleged that consignment other then what is mentioned in the shipping bills respectively were found actually exported in the respective lorry concerned to Bangladesh.

( 7 ) IT was the further allegation in the First Information Report that the fir named accused Nos. l to 9, thus, entered into a criminal conspiracy during the year 2002-2003 with FIR named accused Nos. 10 to 14 representing the firms, being FIR named accused Nos. 16 to 19 and accused No. 15 as well as unknown others to cheat the Government of India and in pursuance of the said conspiracy the said accused Nos. l to 9 fraudulently and dishonestly and by misusing and abusing their official position by illegal means knowing fully well that the details contained in each of the relevant shipping bills are false, certified and authenticated respectively in the respective shipping bills as if the same reflected t