Vijay Ramchandra Tayade Vs P.V.R. Reddy and Anr.

¶1

[1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.843 OF 2007

¶3

 Vijay Ramchandra Tayade .... Petitioner
 Vs.
 P.V.R. Reddy & Ors. .... Respondents

¶4

 The Petitioner in person.

¶5

 Shri Mandar Goswami for the Respondent No.1.

¶6

 Shri V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the
 Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR &
 Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶8

DATED: AUGUST 08, 2007

¶9

P.C:

¶10

 1. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned
 Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also perused
 the petition and the annexures thereto.

¶11

 2. By the present petition, the petitioner is
 challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of
 Customs dated 30-7-2006 imposing penalty on the
 petitioner in the adjudication proceedings under the
 provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner
 also prays for liberty to take out defamation
 proceedings as well as criminal proceedings against the
 concerned authorities as also to order CBI enquiry in
 respect of the alleged misuse of official powers by the
 concerned authorities. All those prayers are in

¶12

[2]

¶13

 relation to exercise of powers by the concerned
 authorities under the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose
 of conducting adjudication proceedings against the
 petitioner.

¶14

 3. The challenge to the adjudication proceedings is
 only on the ground that the petitioner has been
 acquitted in the criminal case filed in relation to the
 offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner
 with reference to the facts which were disclosed in the
 complaint and which are also the basis for initiation of
 the adjudication proceedings. It is the contention of
 the petitioner that the petitioner having been once
 declared as not involved in the alleged offence, the
 authorities cannot again initiate adjudication
 proceedings on the same set of facts. The contention is
 thoroughly devoid of substance. It is well-settled law
 that proceedings in a criminal case arising out a set of
 facts are totally different from the proceedings in the
 nature of adjudication for the purpose of ascertaining
 the tax or duty liability and issue relating to evasion
 thereof as well as the penalty on that count under the
 revenue laws including the Customs Act, 1962. The law
 in that regard has been well-settled by a catena of
 decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court.
 It was held by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1748 of
 1999 {Standard Chartered Bank and others v. Directorate

¶15

[3]

¶16

 of Enforcement and others}, decided on 24-2-2006
 referring to its earlier decisions in Santram Paper
 Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad,
 reported in (1998) 8 SCC 335 that the contention that
 since in adjudication proceedings no penalty was imposed
 and there was no finding of personal involvement of the
 appellant, the prosecution against such appellant should
 be quashed, cannot be accepted. It was clearly held
 that the two proceedings are independent of each other
 and finding in one proceedings cannot be construed as
 conclusive for other proceedings. Considering the said
 law laid down on the point in issue, there is absolutely
 no case made out for interference in the adjudication
 proceedings.

¶17

 4. Besides, the order dated 30-7-2006 which is sought
 to be challenged by way of writ petition is undisputedly
 an appealable order and yet no appeal has been filed.
 The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has
 no sufficient money to deposit with the Appellate
 Authority in order to enable him to file the appeal,
 that itself cannot be a justification to contend that
 the petitioner should be allowed to file petition
 instead of appeal. If the statutory provisions clearly
 empower the aggrieved party to file appeal against the
 order passed by the Commissioner of Customs in
 adjudication proceedings, and that there being

¶18

[4]

¶19

 alternative efficacious remedy available to the
 aggrieved party, unless the same is exhausted, the party
 cannot directly approach the Court in writ jurisdiction.
 In case of financial difficulty, nothing prevents the
 petitioner from approaching the concerned Appellate
 Authority requesting such authority to waive the
 condition regarding the requirement of deposit or to
 make some concession in that regard. It is not the case
 of the petitioner that the petitioner had made any such
 efforts at any point of time.

¶20

 5. The question of granting any liberty to initiate
 criminal proceedings against the authorities for the
 alleged illegal acts does not arise. We do not find any
 material placed before us which could reveal any illegal
 act having been committed by the concerned authorities.
 That apart, in case of any such illegality committed by
 the concerned authority, the petitioner has to take
 appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in
 accordance with the provisions of law in case the
 petitioner feels aggrieved by any such act on the part
 of the concerned authorities. The question of grant of
 such liberty in writ jurisdiction does not arise.

¶21

 6. There is absolutely no case made out for giving any
 direction to the CBI for any enquiry in relation to any
 of the acts by the concerned officers and, therefore,

¶22

[5]

¶23

 the request in that regard is also liable to be
 rejected.

¶24

 7. For the reasons stated above, therefore, there is no
 case for interference in the petition. The petition
 fails and is hereby rejected.

¶25

 (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.)

¶26

 sjs/A7cwp843.7

Vijay Ramchandra Tayade v. P.V.R. Reddy and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Ramchandra Tayade v. P.V.R. Reddy and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Hindurao Waze Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mastquin Faieem Ansari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath S. Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjiv Goel Vs Asst. Director of Enforcement and Ors.

Kishor M. Kothari Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Vikram Dande and Anr. Vs Mukhtar Mahamud Shaikh and Ors.