IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
N. Balasubramanian Chennai – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE/ACB, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 5392 of 2023 & Crl.M.P. No. 3384 of 2023
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Criminal Misconduct - Customs Refund Scam - Customs Act, 1962, Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court discussed the charges framed against the petitioner and the material documents, including statements of witnesses, to decide the quash petition. The court analyzed the exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and the adjudication proceedings, and the impact of these findings on the criminal prosecution. The court referred to the standard of proof required for proving charges in the domestic enquiry and the criminal trial. The court also cited relevant case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Tapal Clerk in the Customs Office, filed a petition to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him. The charges against the petitioner related to a customs refund scam involving multiple accused and fraudulent refund claims made by a company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and the adjudication proceedings had a significant impact on the criminal prosecution. The court emphasized the difference in the standard of proof required for proving charges in the domestic enquiry and the criminal trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings, the impact of the findings in the adjudication proceedings on the criminal prosecution, and the standard of proof required for proving charges in different proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that exoneration in departmental proceedings, which requires a less strict standard of proof, can have an impact on the criminal prosecution. The court also emphasized the independence of adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings, and the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Original Petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., pleased to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.1/1998 pending before the Principal Special Judge for CBI/13th Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner and pass such further or other orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.)
1. Petition filed to quash the proceedings pending before the 13th Additional Sessions Court, (Special Court for CBI case), Chennai in C.C.No.1/1998.
2. The petitioner the Tapal Clerk in Customs Office is ranked as 4th accused in the said criminal prosecution launched against M/s.Ballarpur Industries Ltd and 5 others in F.I.R.No.RC17/(A)/95 dated 06.04.1995 was registered based on source information. The final report filed on 29.12.1997 after completing the investigation. The trial Court, on considering materials collected, has framed charges, which is self explanatory and disclosed relevant facts necessary to decide this quash petition. Therefore, the charges are extracted below:-
Firstly that, during 1993-1994 at Chennai deceased Shri.N.Gopalakrishnan, the then AC Refunds in the Customs House, Chennai, by abusing his official position committed criminal misconduct and sanctioned refund knowing fully well that the claims of the M/s.Ballarpur Industries were time barred. A.1 - M/s.Ballarpur Industries (BILT), Pondicherry is a glass making unit of Thappar Group of Companies Thiru.Yogesh Bakshi, General Manager, incharge of the affairs of BILT, preferred ante dated refund claims knowing fully well that the ante dated nature of these claims and the company''s ineligibility to receive the refund and enabled the company to obtain refund to the tune of Rs.2,50,37,145/-, A.2 - Thiru. M.A.Narayanan, an employee of BILT and the subordinate of Mr.Yogesh Bakshi filed the ante dated claims in the Customs Departmental knowing fully well that the ante dated nature of these claims along with A.3 - Tmt.Manorama, A.4 - Thiru.N.Balasubramanian, A.5 - Thiru.Arunachalam, A.6 - Thiru.Periyasamy, the then Tapal Clerks, Customs Department, being public servants entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat the Customs Department, entertained these ante dated refund claims and made ante dated endorsements of the claims thereby validating them to receive the refund as though the company was entitled for the said refund and deceased Thiru. Ramesh Kumar, the then Appraising Officer, Audit, by abusing his official position accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- as a motive or reward for clearing the Auditing of these claims knowing fully well that the claims had been ante dated and thereby you A1 to A.6 have committed an offence punishable U/s 120-B r/w 420, 467 468 and 471 IPC and Section 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.
Secondly, in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, that A.1 - M/s.Ballarpur Industries, Pondicherry is a glass making unit of Thappar Group of Companies. This unit was formed in the year 1991 for the manufacture of light weight glass bottle used for exports. Towards the erection of factory, import of goods i.e., machineries and other items were made by A.1 through Madras Customs House in various consignments, during 1992 A.1 claimed these imported goods as accessories eligible for concessional rate of duties. However, the appraising group of Customs held that the goods imported were not accessories but spares. Thus, a dispute arose with regard to importation of goods under certain Bills of entries. Finally A.1 came forward to pay the prescribed rate of duty and they cleared the goods after paying the higher rate of duty for the goods imported and the bills of entry Nos.026274 dated 31.7.92, 030346 dated 4.9.92, 030661 dated 16.9.92, 030675 dated 8.9.92, 034745 dated 4.9.92. The items imported under the bill of entry numb
AI
The court ruled that if a petitioner is exonerated in a departmental inquiry on merit, the same allegations cannot be prosecuted further in criminal proceedings due to the higher standard of proof re....
If the exoneration in the departmental proceedings is on merits and the allegations are found to be not sustainable, the criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot be allowed to continue.
Timeliness and adherence to rules in disciplinary proceedings are critical; undue delays can lead to quashing of charge sheets.
The court established the principle that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law when the accused had already been exonerated in the departmental enquiry o....
Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically quash criminal proceedings, which must be determined based on evidence in court.
Statements of co-accused are relevant but not sufficient for establishing a charge in absence of independent evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.