Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar subsequent criminal prosecution if evidence differs; High Court can consider materials from accused to prevent abuse of process.

ORDER :

(P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.)

Accused No.1 in C.C.No.4 of 2012 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam is the petitioner. There are nine more accused. They stand charged for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Section 13 (1)(d) read with (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) by filing this petition to get Annexure A7 final report in C.C.No.4 of 2012 and further proceedings thereon quashed.

2. The petitioner was working as the Superintendent at the unaccompanied baggage section of Air Cargo Complex, Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL) during the period from August 2010 to October 2010. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were the Preventive Officers. Accused No.6 was dealing with electronic goods and had been running shops at Chennai. They hatched a conspiracy to import electronic goods by paying no/nominal customs duty. The petitioner involved a clearing agent at CIAL, Sri.Prince Joseph in the conspiracy. Services of other accused were availed to execute the said plot.

3. On 30.09.2010, officers of the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a Qualis Jeep bearing registration No.TN-63-X-1899 (TN-02-L-2212) at Sriperumbudur, Chennai which carried electronic goods cleared through Air Cargo Complex, CIAL finding that there was evasion of customs duty. The vehicle and the articles were seized. Based on the information, the DRI officials passed on, an unaccompanied baggage originated from Singapore, containing electronic goods was seized at the CIAL on 01.10.2010. There was an attempt to evade customs duty and hence the said articles were also seized.

4. The investigation revealed that not only the said two consignments, but 22 more such instances of importing electronic goods without paying customs duty had occurred. Finding that those acts were done in furtherance of the conspiracy involving accused Nos.1 to 3, who are public servants, and other accused, the final report was filed before the Special Court. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 did so misusing their official positions and for gaining pecuniary advantage. The acts resulted in evasion of customs duty of a huge amount and that amounted to cheating the Customs Department. Annexure A7 final report was filed accordingly. The Special Court, after considering the prosecution records and hearing both sides, framed charges against the petitioner and his co-accused, which is Annexure A8.

5. Heard Adv.Sri.B.Satheesh Sundar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.

6. This case originated following seizure of electronic goods worth about Rs.1.35 crores from a Toyota Qualis vehicle, bearing registration No.TN-63-X-1899 (TN-02-L-2212), by the DRI officials at Sriperumbudur, Chennai. One Sri.P.Murugan was the driver and Sri.Kareem Sadhik Basha was the passenger of that vehicle. Their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were recorded. From the information collected from them, surveillance was mounted at Air Cargo Complex, CIAL and baggage declaration of the said Kareem Sadhik Basha submitted through cargo agent Sri.Prince Joseph was located. As against the baggage declaration that the consignment contained blankets, used clothes, books and assorted crockery worth a total value of Rs.2,200/-, the consignment contained electronic goods having a total worth of Rs.1.25 crores. Resultantly, the said articles were also seized. The case of the prosecution is that there were 22 earlier instances of such illegal import and evasion of customs duty; all at the instance of accused No.6 and with the assistance and connivance of the petitioner, and his two subordinates, who are accused Nos.2 and 3, Sri.Prince Joseph and other private individuals.

7. The Department initiated proceedings under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act ag