Does the exoneration in departmental adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act ipso facto warrant or justify quashing of criminal prosecution against an indictee invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C ? This is the question which I am called upon to consider in this Crl.M.C.

2. Petitioner faces indictment in C.C.No.34 of 2005 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. That prosecution is under Section 135 of the Customs Act. There are 2 other accused in that case. The crux of the allegations is that the 1st accused was intercepted when he was in the process of an attempt to export foreign currency at the Airport. He was found to be in possession of foreign currency which he had not declared or could account for. When he was questioned and his statement was recorded, it appears that, he revealed that he had purchased the same from the petitioner herein. The petitioners premises were searched and allegedly incriminating documents were also seized from the possession of the petitioner. The requisite sanction was obtained and it was thereafter that the prosecution was initiated.

.3. Parallelly and simultaneously departmental adjudication proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner. In such proceedings, the petitioner was exonerated as per Annexure-II order of adjudication. Penalty was imposed on the 1st accused. So far as the petitioner is concerned, no penalty was imposed on him. I have searched the entire Annexure-II and the only consideration of the role of the petitioner appears in para.45 of that order which I extract below:

."Para.45: Regarding the role of Sri.Ayoob Ismail as no corroborative evidence is forthcoming I am not inclined to impose any penalty on him."

.4. Proceedings under the COFEPOSA Act was also initiated against the petitioner. An order of detention was passed on 111.2004. Long later, by Annexure-III order dated 17.07.07, that order of preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act was revoked.

.In Annexure-III order, there is no reference whatsoever about the complicity of the petitioner for the precise offence under the Customs Act for which he now faces prosecution. Annexure-III only shows that there was a representation from the petitioner. The Central Government considered the same and decided to revoke the order of preventive detention.

5. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the criminal prosecution against him. He builds his case for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction on Annexures-II and III. In as much as parallel proceedings have ended without imposition of any penalty on him and in as much as the order of preventive detention under the COFEPOSA has been revoked, the petitioner is entitled to get the proceedings against him quashed, it is submitted.

.6. A look at the law will be relevant. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have been described to be awesome. Section 482 Cr.P.C does not really confer any power on the High Court. On the contrary, it reserves certain powers which the High Court always had to act in aid of justice. It would be incorrect to reckon Section 482 Cr.P.C as a provision conferring any powers on the High Court. But the language of Section 482 Cr.P.C, which I extract below, clearly shows that Section 482 Cr.P.C only reserves the powers which the High Court always had to act in aid of justice.

."Section 482 Cr.P.C: Saving of inherent power of High Court--Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

7. The question to be considered is whether exoneration in departmental proceedings under the Customs Act ipso fact entitles an indictee to claim quashing of proce