Judgment:
ORDER
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. Challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent for various offences under the Central Excise Act, the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C. No. 37 of 1999 have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking to quash the said proceedings mainly on the ground that the order of confiscation passed against the petitioners on the basis of the very same charge has been challenged in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would cite a decision in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and request this Court, at least, to stay the criminal proceedings till the disposal of the appeal, since the appeal and the criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar set of facts.
3. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, on the strength of the decision in State of Karnataka v. Sir Janakusa Jeevansa Bakale would submit that the confiscation proceedings or the pendency of the appeal has got nothing to do with criminal persecution and as such, the proceedings can neither be quashed nor stayed.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties.
5. On going through the records and the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court referred to above, it is clear that it is settled law that the proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on same set of facts and evidence in both the proceedings is common.
6. The basis for this preposition is that the proceedings in criminal case and the departmental areas. The standard of proof required in the confiscation proceedings is different from that required in a criminal case.
7. It is true that it has been held by the Supreme Court that if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature and this involves complicated question of law, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. But, this proposition would reflect the situation where the departmental proceedings is sought to be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case.
8. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in (supra), the confiscation proceedings or the appeal against the order of confiscation has got nothing to do with the criminal prosecution.
9. Moreover, it is not established that the materials and evidence to be adduced by the Department before the Tribunal and the prosecution before the criminal Court are one and the same.
10. Under those circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M.P. No. 9454 of 1999 is closed.