Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679) it has been held that where departmental and criminal proceedings are based on identical facts and where charges were sought to be proved by the police officers and the panchas who raided the house and effected recovery and where same set of witnesses were examined in both the proceedings but the criminal court on examination of the evidence came to the conclusion that no recovery was made from the house and that raid was not proved it would be unjust, unfair and oppressive to allow the findings recorded by the enquiry officer to stand against acquittal by judicial pronouncement. The present case is on the stronger footing than the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra). In the present case, in view of Section 98B, a very heavy burden was placed on the appellants in the criminal proceedings. It was for the appellants to rebut the statutory presumption of the culpable mental state placed on them by section 98B. Under section 98B, the appellants had to prove beyond reasonable doubt, which they did, that they had no knowledge of the gold hidden in the ornamental top of the cupboard in the eastern bedroom. Hence, it would be unjust, unfair and oppressive to allow the decision of the Authorised Officer in confiscation proceedings to stand against acquittal by the competent criminal court, which acquittal was confirmed by the High Court and by this court.

14.j. In this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that once if a person is acquitted in a criminal case and on the same set of facts and circumstances, if a departmental adjudication has taken place certainly, such adjudication upon the very same set of facts and evidences cannot stand in the legal scrutiny as the very court who dealt with the criminal case since has acquitted the person concerned, based on a higher standard of proof. The learned counsel for the appellant would lay emphasis on the findings given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2004 176 ELT 3 (S.C) (cited supra) to state that it would be unjust, unfair and oppressive to allow a decision of a authorised officer in confiscation proceedings to stand against acquittal by the competent criminal Court.

22. After appreciating the evidences and the failure on the part of the prosecution in proving their case beyond reasonable doubt i.e., proving the link of the appellant with the team to have hatched the conspiracy and executed the smuggling activity, the Trial Appellate Court has given an acquittal to the appellant by stating that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

23. Once the criminal prosecution has failed to prove the case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt and based on which if an accused person has been acquitted, on the same set of facts and circumstances whether the person's guilt can be proved in the departmental enquiry/adjudication process, has been infact answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment cited supra, as has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in 2004 176 ELT 3 (S.C). The law has been laid down so, in the said Judgment, following the earlier Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the one reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 in the matter of Capt. M.Paul Anthony V. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,where also departmental and criminal proceedings were based on identical facts and the criminal proceedings ended in acquittal, hence it was held that it would be unjust, unfair and oppressive to allow the decision of the Authorised Officer in confiscation proceedings to stand against acquittal.

24. We are of the considered view that in this case also since the appellant has been acquitted from the criminal charges by the competent Trial Appellate Court, in the criminal proceedings, that too on the basis of the failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, allowing the findings of the Adjudicating Officer and his order in original as confirmed by the Tribunal, is nothing but unjust, unfair and in fact oppressive, in the words of Hon'ble Apex Court.