Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 257, The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paras 29 and 30, observed as under:

"29.In our view, in the present case, the alleged criminal liability stands compounded on a settlement with respect to the civil issues and, therefore, the First Information Report was erroneously issued and was totally unwarranted. From the aforesaid judgment, the proposition that follows in the HC-NIC Page 13 of 38 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:07:02 IST 2016 13 of 38 instant case is that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 issued by the Government of India was a voluntary scheme whereby if the disputed demand is settled by the Authority and pending proceedings are withdrawn by an importer shall be dropped and the importer shall be immuned from the penal proceedings under any law in force. We are therefore, of the opinion that this judgment squarely comes in the face of any argument sought to be propounded by the respondent that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 does not absolve the appellants from criminal liability under the Indian Penal Codee. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, in our opinion, has not appreciated the fact that the continuance of the proceedings in the instant case would only tantamount to driving the present appellants to double jeopardy when they had been honorably exonerated by the Collector of Customs by their adjudication and further the GCS of which one of the appellants is the General Secretary in which capacity he is accused in the present case was granted amnesty under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. In our opinion, the present case does not warrant subjecting a citizen especially senior citizens of the age of 92 & 70 years to fresh investigation and prosecution HC-NIC Page 14 of 38 Created On Fri Oct 21 02:07:02 IST 2016 14 of 38 on an incident or fact situation giving rise to the offence under both the Customs Act and the Indian Penal Code when the matter has already been settled. Likewise, the respondent herein has initiated criminal proceedings against Accused No. 2 & Accused No. 1, inter alia , on the ground alleging that the appellant in conspiracy with the co-accused named therein with each other have cheated the Government of India in terms of evasion of Customs Duty and by concealment of facts obtained CDEC in respect of MRI and Lithotripsy machines and by violating the provisions of actual user condition as per Import Export Policy and Customs Notification No. 279/83 dated 30.9.1983 and Customs Notification No. 64/88 dated 1.3.1988 during the year 1987-90, despite acknowledging the fact that Customs Duty has been paid by the appellants to the Customs Department and settled and that commission of offences under Section 120B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are made out.