Madras High Court
M.K.S. Abubacker vs Secretary To Government Of India, ... on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: 1987(32)ELT640(MAD)
ORDER
1. 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 irerquisites etc. , from inside th efilat fear owned by thepetitione r. The third respondent on adjudication of th case, by order dated 29.5.1971 order ed confiscation of the goods. The car owned by thepetitioner was also confiscated under section 115(2) of the Act, but. he was allowed an option to ay a fine of RS. 15,000 in lieun of such confiscation. In addition , a penalty of RS. 20,000 under section 112 of the act was ALSO imposed on th petitioner. The iappeal preferred b y the petitioner t nmthe second respondent was rejected on 9.12.1975 ., On thesame set of facts and aqllegations, a criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner an the chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, convinced th petitioner an passed a sentence of fine on 25.5. 1977. There was a n appeal by theipetitioner in the court of session , Madras Division and the Appellate court found, on an assessment of th materials on merits, that the version put forth by the department cannot be believed was badly treated and statements were extracted from hims by threat AND coercion. It held that under the said circumstances, the prosecution must fail land accordingly acquitted th petitioner by judgment dated 23.1.1978. In the meanwhile ll, as against th 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 weit petition.
2. Srimati Ramani Natarajan, learned conceal for th 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 8fair and proper on the part of 8the department to pejnalilse th 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 8in i D'silva v. Regional Transport Authority ILR 1952 Mad. 632. The following observation f of the Bench elucidative on t6h point.-' 'We have no hesitation in making it clear that a quasi-judicial tribunal, like the r Reginal transport authority or the ap-pellate 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 linstance 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 i him ends in discharge or oacquittal, 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 s 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 honourabvly acquitted by another tribunal of the very same offence. As primarily the criminal courts of the land are entrusted with the enquiry into offence4s, 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,'
3. 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 eacquittal 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 theaction based on such findings, as not in consonance with principles of natural justice.
4. 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.