AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nainar Sundaram, J.—Proceedings under the customs Act, 1962 ,were taken against the petitioner on the ground of seizure of consumer
goods of high profit margin like textiles, fountain pens, nail slippers, toilet prerequisites etc., from inside the file at fear owned by the petitioner. The
third respondent on adjudication of the case, by order dated 29.5.1971 ordered confiscation of the goods. The car owned by the petitioner was
also confiscated u/s 115(2) of the Act, but he was allowed an option to pay a fine of RS. 15,000 in lieu of such confiscation. In addition , a penalty
of RS. 20,000 u/s 112 of the act was ALSO imposed on the petitioner. The appeal preferred b y the petitioner in the second respondent was
rejected on 9.12.1975. On the same set of facts and allegations, a criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner an the chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, convinced the petitioner an passed a sentence of fine on 25.5.1977. There was a n appeal by the petitioner in
the court of session , Madras Division and the Appellate court found, on an assessment of the materials on merits, that the version put forth by the
department cannot be believed was badly treated and statements were extracted from him by threat AND coercion. It held that under the said
circumstances, the prosecution must fail land accordingly acquitted the petitioner by judgment dated 23.1.1978. In the meanwhile, as against the
order of the second respondent dated 9.12.1975., the petitioner preferred a revision to the first respondent sand the first respondent by order
dated 11.7.1978 had rejected the said revision, The orders of the respondents are being challenged in both represents writ petition.
Srimati Ramani Natarajan, learned conceal for the petitioner would large that on the same SET OF facts an delegations, the criminal court has
acquitted both petitioner on merits and hence it is not fair and proper on the part of the department to penalise the petitioner. If this submission, the
learned counsel relied on two judgments of this courts. The first is that of a Division Bench of this court in D''silva v. Regional Transport Authority
ILR 1952 Mad. 632. The following observation of the Bench elucidative on the point.-''
''We have no hesitation in making it clear that a quasi-judicial tribunal, like the r Regional transport authority or the appellate tribunal therefrom,
cannot ignore the findings and orders of competent criminal courts in respect of an offence, when the tribunal proceeds to make take any action on
the basis of the commission of that offence. Let us take the instance before us. The offence consists in smuggling prosecuted. For that same
offence, the petitioner was criminally prosecuted. He has also been punish d by his merit being suspended for a period of three months, If the
criminal case against him ends in discharge or acquittal, it means that the petition is not guilty of the offence and therefore did not merit any
punishment. It would indeed be a strange predicament when in respect of the same offence, he should be punished, by one tribunal on the footing
that he was guilty on the offence and that the should be honorably acquitted by another tribunal of the very same offence. As primarily the criminal
courts of the land are entrusted with the enquiry into offences, it is desirable that the findings and orders of the criminal courts should be treated as
conclusive in proceedings before quasi-judicial tribunals like the transport authorities under the motor vehicles act,''
Ananthanarayanan of chief Justice, in Shaik Kasim v. super intendent of post offices, 1965 2 . MLJ 90, following the judgment or the Bench of
this court in D''silva v. Regional transport authority, ILR 1962 Mad. 632 , held that where the acquittal is substantially on merits, on identical facts
land charges, it will not be proper for disciplinary tribunal to record a finding of guilt, and to punish thereon, and this court in exercise of the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution would be justified in in striking down the action based on such findings, as not in consonance with
principles of natural justice.
I find that before the proceedings of the departmental authorities got terminated finally. The criminal court judgment has been rendered by the
sessions judge, Madras division, and the said court has acquitted the petitioner not on any technical ground, but on the merits of the case, such
being, the position, the dictum laid down in the above two o decisions will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In this view, I am obliged
to interfere in the writ petition an accordingly the petition is allowed. There will be no order a as to costs.