LexM/S RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1744 : 2025 INSC 901 M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited and Others v. Union of India & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2017) 24 July 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih,* J.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the legality of having parallel and continuation of adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings against the appellants. Headnotes† Central Excise Act, 1944 – ss.9, 9AA – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.245(2), 482 – Continuation of parallel adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings – Legality – Criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants u/ss.9 and 9AA of the 1944 Act – Discharge application by the appellants on the ground that quashing of the departmental proceedings initiated by the respondent- department against the appellant by the High Court in the Writ, on the similar grounds, the criminal proceedings are not sustainable against the appellants – Dismissed by the trial court holding that adjudication and prosecution were independent processes and that the appellants had not yet been absolved of the underlying liabilities in the departmental proceedings – Revision thereagainst dismissed by the High Court – Interference with: Held: No bar on parallel proceedings, with one being by the Department and the other being criminal in nature, under the 1944 Act – Direction for de novo proceedings on technical or procedural grounds cannot be assumed to be in equivalence to having been set-aside on merits, when it was specifically mentioned that the merits have not been considered – Plea of the appellant that non- existent Order dated 31.03.2011 was set aside, even assuming it to be so, it is clear from the materials on record that investigation * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1745 M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited and Others v. Union of India & Another and the complaint are still in sustenance against the appellants – Contents of the complaint reveal that no reliance placed on the now-set aside Order dated 31.03.2011 rather it was only referred as an addendum – Irregularities which came to light on search and the contents of the investigation report, are sufficient to observe and opine prima facie on the existence of allegations against the appellants, at the time of the consideration made by the trial court justifying the passing of the summoning order – Even the contention on the conditional stay of the subsequent Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, by the High Court does not come to the assistance of the appellants – Furthermore, it cannot be said that the allegations for the purpose of criminal complaint, were rendered “groundless” – Proceedings by the respondent-Department were passed on merits and not on technical foundation – Contentions raised by the appellants on jurisprudence of discharge misconceived and outside the scope of adjudication – Contents of the complaint prima facie makes out an offence under the statute for which it had been preferred – Having perused the alleged conduct and the orders passed by the concerned authorities and the courts below, the authorities relied upon by the appellants are unable to substantiate their claim – Impugned judgment passed by the High Court does not call for interference. [Paras 28-36] Case Law Cited Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and Another [2011] 4 SCR 889 : (2011) 3 SCC 581; Air Customs Officer IGI, New Delhi v. Pramod Kumar Dhamija [2016] 2 SCR 561 : (2016) 4 SCC 153 – relied on. Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand and Another [2009] 4 SCR 515 : (2009) 14 SCC 115; State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu and Others [2022] 7 SCR 630 : (2023) 6 SCC 768; Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Another [1988] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : (1988) 2 SCC 602; Videocon Industries Limited and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2016] 2 SCR 741 : (2016) 12 SCC 315; Vishnu Kumar Shukla and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2023] 13 SCR 1071 : (2023) 15 SCC 502; State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan and Others [2014] 1 SCR 135 : (2014) 11 SCC 709 – referred to. 1746 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports List of Acts Central Excise Act, 1944; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. List of Keywords Continuation of parallel adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings; Discharge application; Quashing of the departmental proceedings; A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.