1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of criminal trial pending in the court of Special Judge in C.C. No.71 of 2004. The ground taken by the petitioner is that on the same evidence which formed part of the criminal trial, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was exonerated by the department. It is further submitted that the report of Investigating Officer dated 21st March, 2007 was also considered by the inquiry officer. In his report, the Investigating Officer had come to conclusion that there was no demand of illegal gratification of 5,000/- made by the petitioner and the petitioner had not accepted the money from M/s. Suntex Enterprises owned by Sh. R.S. Guleria. Even S.P., CBI while drawing conclusion to his report sent to the department concluded that case was not fit for launching prosecution for the reasons as under :-

“The company which engaged the complainant to represent them has denied giving any money for bribing any officer.

It is not clear as to why the cable which was sent to NTH on 18th May, 1994 was taken up by the accused to contact the complainant only on 13th July, 1994.

In the conversation recorded through teletape immediately before proceeding to the spot of trap, there is no demand of bribe.”

2. It is submitted by the petitioner that this court in Ajay Kumar Tyagi Vs. State; III (2008) DLT (Crl.) 788 had observed as under :-

“6. The settled law as noticed and summarised by this Court in Sunil Gulati v. R.K. Vohra, 145 2007 DLT 612 = IV (2007) DLT (Crl.) 859 = (2007) [1] JCC 220, is that where there is a complete exoneration on merits in the adjudication proceedings, the continuation of criminal proceedings on the same set of facts cannot be sustained. In Sunil Gulati’s case (supra), A.K. Sikri, J. of this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors., 127 (2006) DLT 747 (SC) – I (2006) CCR 161 (SC) = II (2006) SLT 446 = 2006 (1) JCC 488 has held as under:

25. ...In fact, various cases of the Supreme Court, note whereof is taken above, deal with different situations. The principles which can be culled out from the aforesaid judgments, when all these judgments are read out harmoniously, would be the following:

(1) On the same violation alleged against a person, if adjudication proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are permissible, both can be initiated simultaneously. For initiating criminal proceedings one does not have to wait for the outcome of the adjudication proceedings as the two proceedings are independent in nature.

(2) The findings in the departmental proceedings would not amount to res judicata and initiation of criminal proceedings in these circumstances cannot be treated as double jeopardy as they are not in the nature of ``prosecution'`

(3) In case adjudication proceedings are decided against a person who is facing prosecution as well and the Tribunal has also upheld the findings of the Adjudicators/Assessing Authority, that would have no bearing on the criminal proceedings and the criminal proceedings are to be determined on its own merits in accordance with law, uninhibited by the findings of the Tribunal. It is because of the reason that in so far as criminal action is concerned, it has to be proved as per the strict standards fixed for criminal cases before the Criminal court by producing necessary evidence.

(4) In case of converse situation namely where the accused persons are exonerated by the Competent Authorities/Tribunal in adjudication proceedings, one will have to see the reasons for such exoneration to determine whether these criminal proceedings could still continue. If the exoneration in departmental adjudication is on technical ground or by giving benefit of doubt and not on merits or the adjudication proceedings were on different facts, it would have no bearing on criminal proceedings. I