Ashab Alam vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ashab Alam, a Head Havaldar in the CGST and Central Excise office, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against him. The FIR, Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 16 of 2018, was filed by the Bihar Police under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations concerned illegal smuggling of Nepali liquor. The petitioner's primary contention for quashing the FIR was that a departmental proceeding for the same occurrence had already been conducted by the Custom Authorities. In that proceeding, the petitioner was exonerated by an order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner / Disciplinary Authority, Central GST & CX, Patna-I, leading to the dropping of charges against him.
Held
The Court allowed the writ application and quashed the FIR. The Court noted that it is an admitted position that a departmental proceeding for the same occurrence was initiated against the petitioner by the custom authorities, and he was exonerated by an order dated 02.02.2023. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions, particularly Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Anr., which relied on P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar. The principle established is that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings (preponderance of probability) is lower than in criminal proceedings (beyond reasonable doubt). When the charge in both proceedings is identical and the individual is exonerated in the departmental inquiry, continuing the criminal prosecution is not justified. Applying this principle, the Court held that the prosecution against the petitioner cannot continue on the basis of the same charge for which he was exonerated in the departmental proceeding. Consequently, the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the prosecution against the petitioner can continue under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code, notwithstanding his exoneration in a departmental proceeding for the same occurrence? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that since he has been exonerated in a departmental proceeding conducted by the Custom Authorities for the same occurrence and charges, the criminal prosecution should be quashed. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Anr. (2020) 9 SCC 636, which in turn relied on P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCC 1. The petitioner emphasized that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is lower than in criminal proceedings, and when the charges are identical and the petitioner is exonerated departmentally, continuing a criminal prosecution is unjustified. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016, Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20-03-2023 Heard the parties. This application has been filed for quashing of F.I.R vide Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 16 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2/5 2016 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Excise, Motihari. Further prayer of the petitioner is to declare that Shri T.N. Rai, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chhauradano Police Station is not competent to investigate Chhauradanao P.S. Case No. 16 of 2018. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as head Havaldar in the office of Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Headquarter, Patna. The present F.I.R. has been filed by the Bihar Police under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016 and under Section 272 and 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia alleging that the petitioner was indulged in illegal smuggling of Nepali liquor. The main ground on which the petitioner seeks quashing of his prosecution is that for the same occurrence a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him and the same has been conducted by the Custom Authorities and after detailed investigation the petitioner has been exonerated by order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner / Disciplinary Authority Central GST & CX, Patna-I and accordingly the charges levelled against the petitioner were dropped.
3/5 In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble The Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied upon the decision SCC 1 wherein the question came up for consideration before 4/5 Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the respondents were EOW, CBI and Anr. (supra), which reads as under:- “17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it.” Considering the aforesaid law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discharged the appellant from the offences registered under the Indian Penal Code. Applying the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Rajya vs. State of 5/5 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016 and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR are quashed.
Guddu/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR A.F.R. CAV DATE N/A. Uploading Date 24.03.2023 Transmission Date 24.03.2023
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.