IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No.147 of 2004. Date of decision: 20.07.2010. M/s.Pamwi Tissues Ltd. … …Petitioner Versus Assistant Collector, … …Respondent Custom and Central Excise Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arjun Lall, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For Respondent No.2: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 27.12.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, whereby the Magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for dismissing the complaint. 2. The petitioner filed an application for dismissal of the complaint instituted against the petitioner under the Central Excise and Salt Act on the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 ground that the facts with respect to the complaint had already been adjudicated by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner pleads that the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and the decision of the Tribunal a bar for continuation of further proceedings before the Court. One of the reasons for dismissing the application as held by the trial Court is that before evidence is recorded in terms of Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be unable to adjudicate upon the respective merits of the case of the parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken me through the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and has submitted in detail that this order having attained finality, does not attribute any deliberate act or fault to the petitioner for the alleged evasion/concealment of payment of duty etc. This claim is contested by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. 4. Without going into the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, at this stage, and without pronouncing on the merits of the respective contentions of the parties, this petition is disposed of with the directions:- (a) That if the Appellate Tribunal has already adjudicated on the subject 3 matter of the criminal complaint before the Magistrate and if such order has attained finality, the obvious consequences shall be adjudicated by the learned trial Court; (b) That it would be open to the petitioner to urge these facts before the learned Tribunal who shall consider it before proceeding further in the case. (c) The learned Magistrate shall take into consideration the judgment passed by the Tribunal and shall then proceed in accordance with law. (d) Parties to appear before the learned trial Court at Kandaghat on 25th September, 2010. 5. Copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the parties by 25th August, 2010. This petition is disposed of with the above directions. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. July 20, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.