HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6866 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner allegedly committed certain violations under the provisions of the Customs Act as well as under the provisions of the Excise Act. 2. The 1st respondent proceeded against the petitioner under the provisions of various enactments. Inter alia, the Special Court for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, was also moved by the 1st respondent against the petitioner, arraying the petitioner as A-1 therein and against two others in CC No.38 of 2000. The petitioner sought for stay of all further proceedings in CC No.38 of 2000. 3. Sri V.Gopala Krishna Gokhale, learned Standing Counsel for the Customs Department as well as the Special Public Prosecutor before the Special Court for Economic Offences Hyderabad has taken me through various provisions of the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade Development Regulations Act. Inter alia he pointed out that the proceedings u/Sec.135 of the Customs Act before the Special Court for Economic Offences are independent of the proceedings under the other provisions of the Customs Act and u/Sec.3 of the Foreign Trade Development Regulation Act. There are no two opinions about this contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The proceedings before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, are different from the proceedings in CC No.38 of 2000 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. The legal position is also clear that where the proceedings before the CESTAT, Bangalore, and the Economic Offences Court are independent of each other, there is no bar to proceed with both the cases similarly. 4. Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the order passed by this court in Crl.P.No.3146 of 2001. When CC No.38 of 2000 was launched against the petitioner, the petitioner moved this court through Crl.P.No.3146 of 2001 to quash the same. The High Court through order dated 19.11.2001 allowed the petition directing the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, not to proceed with CC No.38 of 2000 pending disposal of the appeals before the CESTAT, Bangalore. Accordingly, the further proceedings in CC No.38 of 2000 stood stayed. 5. While so, the CESTAT, Bangalore, passed order on 27.3.2007 remitting the appeal of the petitioner to the Commissioner of Customs and Excise by ordering de novo enquiry. Once CESTAT, Bangalore, disposed of the appeal before it, the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3146 of 2001 outlived itself. 6. The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise reconsidered the case after the same was remitted to it by CESTAT, Bangalore, and passed orders on 19.6.2008 virtually reiterating the orders it passed on the earlier occasion. Questioning the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs and Excise on 19.6.2008, the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. The present stage is that the appeal is pending before the CESTAT, Bangalore, as appeals in C/601 of 2008 and C/602 of 2008. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the 1st respondent is to proceed against the petitioner in CC No.38 of 2000, irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner if the petitioner ultimately succeeds before the CESTAT, Bangalore. There cannot be any doubt that the result of the CESTAT, Bangalore, in the appeals in C/601 of 2008 and C/602 of 2008 has a direct bearing on the result of CC No.38 of 2000. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal[1] in this context, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the decision before the Income Tax Authorities have a direct bearing on the proceedings before the Criminal Court and that in such an event, it would be just and proper to stop the criminal proceedings till the proceedings before the Income Tax authorities reached to an ultimate conclusion. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no damage would be caused if further proceedings in CC No.38 of 2000 are stopped pending disposal of the appeals before the CESTAT, Bangbalore. 9. Curiously, the 1st respondent has examined three witnesses in CC No.38 of 2000. The petitioner moved through the present petition only thereafter. The learned Standing Counsel and the Special Public Prosecutor for the Customs and Excise Department contended that if further proceedings are stopped at this stage, it might become difficult for the Department to procure witnesses after the disposal of the appeals before the CESTAT, Bangbalore. However, I am given to understand that the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent are anxious to move CESTAT, Bangbalore, for the early disposal of the appeals before the Tribunal. I therefore, consider it just and proper to stop further proceedings in CC No.38 of 2000 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, for a period of one year only to enable both sides to obtain disposal of the appeals before the CESTAT, Bangalore. The 1st respondent shall be entitled to proceed with CC No.38 of 2000 if the appeals before CESTAT, Bangalore, are not disposed of within one year from today. It is also made clear that if the appeals before the CESTAT, Bangalore, are disposed of within one year, the 1st respondent shall be at liberty to proceed with CC No.38 of 2000 in the event, he succeeds before the CESTAT, Bangalore, after due notice to the petitioner even before completion of one year from today. 10. This petition is accordingly disposed of staying all further proceedings in CC No.38 of 2000 for a period of one year only from today. The petitioner and the 1st respondent are advised to move CESTAT, Bangalore, for an expeditious disposal of their appeals in C/601 of 2008 and C/602 of 2008. 11. The learned Special Judge for Economic Offences may proceed with CC No.38 of 2000 after the expiry of one year from today, whether the appeals before the CESTAT, Bangalore, are disposed of or otherwise. If the appeals before CESTAT, Bangalore are disposed of earlier than the one year time as prescribed through the present order, the Special Court for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, may proceed with the case in CC No.38 of 2000 accordance with law on the strength of the orders of the CESTAT, Bangalore. 12. Accordingly the criminal petition is disposed of. = __________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Dt. 31-03-2011 Mjl/* [1] 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 544