The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exoneration in the adjudication proceedings does not automatically lead to the dropping of criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that the findings in the adjudication proceedings would not amount to res judicata and that criminal proceedings are to be determined on their own merits. The court also highlighted the distinction between exoneration on technical grounds and exoneration on merits, stating that if the exoneration in the adjudication proceedings is on merits and the accused is found innocent, the criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue.

A.K. Sikri, J.-All these petitions involve same question of law with almost same factual foundation. Therefore, these are disposed of by this common judgment to avoid repeating the legal position. After restating the legal principles in the first case, each case is dealt with separately.

Crl. M.C. No. 2173/2004 & Crl. M. C. No. 991/2004

2. Sh. RK. Vohra, Intelligence Officer of the Directorate Revenue Intelligence (DRI), New Delhi, has filed complaint under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No. 1. Other accused person is one Mr. Joginder Pal Singh @ Jagmohan Singh. Taking cognizance of this complaint, both the accused persons were summoned by the learned ACMM. On receiving the summons, the petitioner filed application for his discharge which application has been dismissed by the learned ACMM vide order dated 17.2.2004. In fact, other co-accused had also filed similar application and vide the impugned order, both these applications have been dismissed. In these circumstances, petitioner has approached this Court for dismissal of the said complaint.

3. The brief facts, which can be noticed from the reading of the complaint filed by the complainant, are the following:

On 27.4.1997, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the basis of specific intelligence intercepted two persons on platform No. 10 at New Delhi Railway Station namely the petitioner and one Chaman Lai. Upon search of the briefcase as alleged by the complainant, being carried by the petitioner, foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 41,22,050/- was found concealed in a false cavity, which could not be explained by the petitioner and the petitioner was apprehended by the Officers of the DRI.

4. In the statement dated 27/28.4.1997 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1967 the petitioner admitted the recovery and seizure and stated that the said currency had been handed over to him by one person named Joginder Pal Singh @ Jagmohan @ Thakur, who had directed him to take it to Calcutta and hand over the briefcase with the currency to Jagmohans contact there.

5. It was also stated by the petitioner that Joginder Pal Singh @ Jagmohan gave his Maruti Zen car bearing No. DL-4C-E-8924 to enable him to drop his father-in-law Shri Chaman Lai the Railway Station since Jagmohan had asked Chaman Lai to go to Calcutta in place of the petitioner and to carry the currency in his behalf.

6. Thereafter, the Officers of the DRI on 28.4.1997 searched residential premises of the petitioner, however nothing incriminating being either foreign currency or gold was found therein.

7. It would be noticed at this stage that when the petitioner was produced before the learned ACMM after his arrest, he retracted his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act on the ground that this statement had been procured under coercion and under use of third degree methods. However, we are not concerned with this aspect of the matter. The ground on which the petitioner as well as his co-accused sought discharge was that during the pendency of this complaint, an adjudication order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) on 31.3.2000, whereby the foreign currency allegedly seized from the petitioner as also the car belonging to one Joginder Pal Singh @ Jagmohan @ Thakur were confiscated and a personal penalty of Rs. 5 lacs each was imposed on two persons. These two persons had challenged the adjudication order by filing separate appeals before the CEGAT and vide common order dated 1.8.2002, the CEGAT was pleased to set aside and quash the adjudication order on merits. Thus, it is pleaded by the petitioner that since the order of adjudication passed by the adjudicating authority itself is set aside and the CEGAT has recorded the findings in favour of the petitioner, continuation of the proceedings in the