J. N. CHOWDHURY, J. ( 1 ) THESE nine Rules have been heard together and this judgment will govern all of them. ( 2 ) THE present petitioner is a partner of a number of firms, namely, Messrs Standard Agency, Western Agency, Ruby Skinex Traders, Ruby Hide Skin Co. , Globe Hide Skin Agency, Bengal Skin Traders, Calcutta Skin Supplies and Eastern Agency. He is a Director of Hindusthan Eximp Traders Ltd. ( 3 ) THE petitioner through the said firms came on the business of a registered exporter from Calcutta, and entered into different contracts for the export of wet blue goat skin to the U. S. S. R. The authorised clearing agent was MIs. Shaikh and Pandit. At the relevant time the export of wet blue goat skin was a restricted and canalised item through the State Trading Corporation of India, while the Joint Chief Controller of Import and Export was empowered to extend the validity of the required licence from time to time according to the Rules. ( 4 ) IT is the prosecution case that the petitioner and his associate firms exported wet blue goat skin by forging the stamp of the State Trading Corporation and the Joint Chief Controller of Import and Export as also by forging the signatures of officials of both the said authorities. The said goods were all intercepted. It is further the prosecution case in the said complaints lodged that the Government Examiner of the questioned documents has opined that the signatures and stamps on the body of all the shipping bills in question stated to be those of the said two authorities were not genuine, but forged. According to the prosecution, the present petitioner in his voluntary statement before the Customs Authorities has admitted that he has committed forgery in the said shipping bills. ( 5 ) NINE complaints were lodged against the present petitioner and the said firms under Sections 132, 135 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, after obtaining the necessary sanction. Process was issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under the said Sections of the Customs Act and. the Indian Penal Code in all the nine matters numbered as C/482 to 489 of 1982 and C/1048 of 1982. Process was issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under the said Sections of the Customs Act and. the Indian Penal Code in all the nine matters numbered as C/482 to 489 of 1982 and C/1048 of 1982. The nine present rules are in respect of the said nine complaint cases pending against the present petitioner and the said firm. In these nine rules, the present petitioner has prayed for quashing of the pending proceeding. On 30th September, 1982 Division Bench of this High Court (B. C. Chakraborty and N. G. Chaudhury, 33) in Cr1. Revision No. 1654 of 1982 disposed of an application by the present petitioner for amalgamation of the said nine complaint cases being C/482-489 of 1982 and C/1048 of 1981 pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, l2th Court, Calcutta by the following Order: The cases are of similar nature but the parties are different. The learned Advocate for the opposite parties opposes the prayer for amalgamation but submits that he has no objection to the cases being taken up consecutively one after the other: ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the application, the application is disposed of by directing that the cases aforesaid be taken up for hearing by the learned Magistrate on the same date or on consecutive dates as may be convenient. The application is, thus, disposed of. ( 7 ) THE present Rules for quashing of the proceedings were all obtained on 8. 10. 82 and the learned Judge issuing the same directed that all the nine rules be heard together. (Mrs. Nag, 3. ). An interim stay of proceedings was also granted till disposal of the rules. ( 8 ) MR. Deb, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No. 1, at the outset submitted that in view of the said order dated 30th September, 1982 of this High Court on the petition for amalgamation of the nine cases filed by the accused present petitioner, the present petitions for quashing should not be entertained by this Court. He submitted that the prayer for quashing should have been taken made in the said petitions which were filed only for amalgamation instead of the prayer for amalgamation. He referred to the decisions in 1984 Cr. L. J. 29 (Calcutta), AIR. 1956 S. C. 1586, AIR, 1979 S. C. 87,1975 Cr. L. . He submitted that the prayer for quashing should have been taken made in the said petitions which were filed only for amalgamation instead of the prayer for amalgamation. He referred to the decisions in 1984 Cr. L. J. 29 (Calcutta), AIR. 1956 S. C. 1586, AIR, 1979 S. C. 87,1975 Cr. L. . T. 1312 Calcutta, AIR. 1959 A. P. 254 and 1984 Cr. L. J. (N. O. C.) 136, in this connection. ( 9 ) MR. Bhose, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in this connection referred to the case reported in AIR. 1975 S. C. 1002, to show that even a second application for quashing was permissible under certain circumstances. ( 10 ) IO. since depending on the facts of the case a court has to decide whether to exercise in inhere lit powers for quashing, I have gone into the merits of the application for quashing. ( 11 ) IN all these cases departmental proceedings were started by the customs Authorities for confiscation of the goods concerned. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta, by his order dated 18. 8. 80 confiscated the said goats skin and imposed fine and penalties. 1 hereafter, nine separate appeals were preferred by the said firms on 15. 9. 80 before the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. The said appeals were disposed of on 5. 1. 81. Against the said order dated 5. 1. 81 the said firm s on 12. 1. 81 preferred nine revisional applications before the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. New Delhi. A Revisional Application dated 7th January, 1981 was also filed by the Trade Representative of the U. S. S. R. in India. On 20th January, 1981 in interim order was passed by the Central Government pending final decision on the revisional application. By the said order the Central Government accepted the contentions of the Russian buyer, that the goods could not be detained for the recovery of personal penalties imposed on the exporting firms, since the property of the goods had passed, on to the Russian buyer (Section 141 of the Customs Act, 1961 ). ( 12 ) IN the said interim order dated 20th January, 1981 of the Central Government (Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue) inter alia the following observation occurred. ( 12 ) IN the said interim order dated 20th January, 1981 of the Central Government (Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue) inter alia the following observation occurred. Central Government observes that this case has inter alia created severe difficulties for parties who have admittedly not done anything wrong. The Russian buyers, for instance, have already paid the price of the goods including the export duty and they have produced certificates from the banks to that effect. The exporters have also confirmed having received such payment of price including duty and yet the goods are held up and they cannot use them. Secondly, because of long storage, the goods are reported to have deteriorated, already and there is every danger of further deterioration, with the passage of time, having regard particularly to the climatic conditions. Thirdly, the working schedule of the Soviet industry has been upset as represented by the Soviet Trade Representation because of the non-receipt of these consignments and this has caused considerable difficulties to the Russians. Fourthly, the Russian buyers have during the last two months or so suspended their purchases. As a result of this action, a number of tanneries in Calcutta have closed down causing difficulties not only to the owners but also to the vast number of workers employed in these factories. The prices of leather, have come down causing financial hardship to the trade. Fifthly, unless immediate measures are undertaken to rectify the situation, (he export of this commodity to U. S. S. R. may be adversely affected on a long term basis. ( 13 ) HAVING regard to the various problems which have been created as mentioned above, Central Government finds it necessary to pass an interim order to mitigate these hardships at least to some extent. The objective of this interim order is to permit the shipment of the goods so that the export of this commodity w U. S. S. R. is resumed, supplies co Russian industry are assured, the tanneries in Calcutta start resumption of work and the export earnings are not affected on long- term basis. There are, however, a few aspects which have to be sorted out. One is that the goods have been confiscated and the redemption fine has to be paid before the goods are allowed to be exported. There are, however, a few aspects which have to be sorted out. One is that the goods have been confiscated and the redemption fine has to be paid before the goods are allowed to be exported. By an interim order, the Central Board of Excise and Customs had permitted export on a bank guarantee. The Central Government, however, observes that the formalities with regard to his bank guarantee could not be completed. The Advocate appearing on behalf of the exporting firms had not been able to convince the Central Government that the objections raised by the Calcutta Customs are without substance. In these circumstances, there seems to be no alternative but to insist upon the payment of fine in lieu of confiscation before the goods are allowed to be exported. ( 14 ) THE petitioner has stated in the petitions filed before this Court that the entire amount of fine has been paid. ( 15 ) THE only point which has been urged by Mr. Bhose, learned Advocate for the petitioner, is that the Central Government has observed in the order quoted above that this case has inter alia created severe difficulties for parties who have admittedly not done anything wrong, and in his submission, thereby the petitioner and the said firms have been exonerated. He, therefore, submits that the proceeding should be quashed against the petitioner and the said firms. No other point has been urged on behalf of the petitioner. ( 16 ) MR. Deb, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. , 1 has drawn the attention of the Court of the decision reported in AIR. 1983, S. C. 67 (Para 10)1, also reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others2. In paragraph 10 the Supreme Court has observed as follows; It is therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under section 482 of the present Code. ( 17 ) MR. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under section 482 of the present Code. ( 17 ) MR. Deb has further submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to above (1983 Cr. L. J. 159), the case reported in N. C. Nag Pal and Ors. v. The State and Anr. 3 which has been relied upon by Mr. Bhose, is of no avail. In the Calcutta decision it has been inter alia, observed that in exercising the inherent power the scope is much more expensive than while exercising normal revisional power and the Court can quash a proceeding for ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. ( 18 ) MR. Deb has further submitted that reading the said order dated 20th January, 1981 of the Central Government, as a whole, it is clear that the words for parties who have admittedly not done anything wrong, cannot mean the present petitioner and or the said firms, and that in any event any opinion which the Central Government may hold, can have no bearing on the question on proceedings in any Criminal Court. He has further pointed out that in none of the present petitions in which rules have been obtained for quashing of the proceedings, on 8. 10. 82 has it been disclosed that previously applications had been made for amalgamation or that a Division Bench of this High Court on 30th September, 1982 had disposed of the said applications by directing that the cases be taken up for hearing by the learned Magistrate on the same date or on consecutive dates as may be convenient. ( 19 ) IF the order of the Central Government dated 20th January, 1981 which has been quoted above, is read as a whole there cannot be any doubt that the words that this case has, inter alia, created severe difficulties for parties who have admittedly not done anything wrong do not refer to the present petitioner and or the said firms. In the last part of the said order it has been noted that the Advocate appearing on behalf of the exporting firms had not been able to convince the Central Government that the objections raised by the Calcutta Customs are without substance. In these circumstances, there seems to be no alternative but to insist on the parties the payment of fine in lieu of confiscation before the goods are allowed to be exported. In my view, the words parties who have admittedly not done anything wrong, refer to the Russian buyers, the Soviet Industry, the various tanneries in Calcutta, and the export by India of this commodity to U. S. S. R. ( 20 ) EVEN if the said words, parties who have admittedly not done anything wrong, could be construed as including the present petitioner and or the said firms, that fact can have no bearing on the possible findings of any Court. ( 21 ) IN the result, the only point urged by Mr. Bhose, learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the petitioner and the said firms have been exonerated by the said order dated 20th January, 1981 of the Central Government, fails. This Court finds no grounds for quashing of the proceedings or any of them covered by the nine Rules. This Court records its strong disapproval of the dilatory tactics of the petitioner in this case by filing successive applications as has been done in this case. The fact of the prevision application for amalgamation has also been entirely suppressed in obtaining the present nine Rules. This also cannot be but strongly condemned. All these applications fail. All the nine Rules are discharged and all interim orders are vacated. The trials will now proceed in accordance in the said order quoted above dated 30th September, 1982 of the Division Bench of this High Court in Cri. Revision No. 1654 of 1982 (B. C. Chakraborty and NC. Chaudhuri ). ( 22 ) LET the records be sent down forthwith. It is made clear that I have only gone into the merits of the applications for quashing and nothing in this judgment will, in any way, affect the merits of the cases at the trials thereof. Petition dismissed.