Exoneration in adjudication proceedings does not ipso facto result in the quashing of criminal prosecution. The exoneration must be on merits, and the evidence in both the adjudication proceedings and the criminal case must be identical for the criminal prosecution to be quashed.

1. Aggrieved by two orders dated 8th December, 2009 and 21st December, 2009, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is two folds, firstly unwarranted remarks against the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the two orders and secondly, dropping the proceedings against the respondent on his application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.

2. Brief factual matrix of the case is that on 1st September, 1997 officers of the Customs Preventive, New Delhi intercepted one Mahender Goyal at the exit gate of domestic airport hall of Delhi Airport on his arrival from Kathmandu via Varanasi. His luggage was opened and examined in the presence of witnesses and it was found to contain 131 pieces of mobile phones (Sony and Siemens), 260 pieces of Chargers and adapters, 400 pieces of 8 M.B. RAM, 100 pieces of MPO cooler with leads, all of foreign origin and empty card board cartons of mobile phones bearing marking as Nokia and Siemens. The above goods valued at Rs.1,05,20,000/- were seized since Mahender Goyal had not produced any evidence of legal possession/import of the same. In his statement dated 1st September, 1997 Mahender Goyal admitted that he started carrying mobile phones and computer parts from Kathmandu to Delhi for the last one month on the directions of Vijay Saxena and that Vijay Saxena gave him 3 pieces of baggage to carry to Delhi; that he was to deliver the same to one Tony who had a shop by the name M/s Gift Palace in the Municipal Market, Karol Bagh. On 2nd September, 1997, he further stated that on reaching Customs arrival hall in Varanasi from Kathmandu, he gave the Customs clearance card (portion of the disembarkation card) to Arvind Kumar, the respondent herein who stamped the same; he paid Rs.30,000/- to him for customs clearance and had not obtained any receipt for it. Enquiries from the office of the Air Customs, Varanasi showed that the respondent was on duty as Air Customs Officer on 1st September, 1997 and had also attended to the passengers on flight IC-751 by which Mahender Goyal had travelled.

3. In his statement dated 18th February, 1998, the respondent stated that on 1st September, 1997, he was allotted preventive duty for attending departure and arrival of flight IC-752 from Varanasi to Kathmandu and IC-751 from Kathmandu to Varanasi, he did not remember Mahender Goyal and also whether he arrived at the Varanasi Airport from Kathmandu on 1st September, 1997. Based on the above, a show cause notice dated 24th February, 1998 was issued to Mahender Goyal, Vijay Saxena and the respondent herein proposing confiscation of seized goods under Section 111(d) and imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudication authority ordered absolute confiscation of the seized goods and imposed penalties on Mahender Goyal, Vijay Saxena, Tony and his partner and also imposed a penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on the respondent herein.

4. Appeals were filed before the Custom, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Tribunal’) by the respondent wherein the orders passed by the adjudicating authority were set aside. After detailed consideration of the merits, the Appellate Tribunal held:-

“5. In appeal No.C/11/2000, the statements of Rakesh Kumar, Raj Kumar Singhal and Vipin Kumar Bansal have been relied upon to charge the appellant with abetment of smuggling. In his first statement dated 1.9.97, Rakesh Kumar has stated that on 17.8.97, it was the appellant who helped him and Raj Kumar Singhal to clear mobile phones etc. without payment of duty. The contention of the appellant that he was on leave on that day has not been rebutted and there is also no finding that even though he was on leave, the appellant was physically present at Varanasi Airport on 17.8.97. Regarding clearance of goods carried by Rakesh Kumar and Raj Kumar Singhal on 24.8.97, Rakesh Kumar has name