Judgment :- This is a petition to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 78 of 1990 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner is the second accused in the above said C.C. and is a partner of the first accused firm. Third accused is another partner of the said firm and fourth accused is the husband of the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the first accused firm is engaged in manufacturing of tread rubber and had a licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The excise duty has to be paid on the tread rubber manufactured in the factory under the provisions of the Act and Rules. On the basis of the intelligence reports the factory premises was searched by a team of officers of the Central Excise Collectorate on 28-7-1987 and a quantity of 346.90 Kgs. of tread rubber was found on physical stock verification, whereas the Stock Register showed a nil stock. The excess stock was seized by the searching party. Later, a statement from the petitioner was recorded by the officers of the Department wherein she stated that her husband, fourth accused, was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the firm with her nephew. She further admitted that she did not know anything about the affairs of the firm. Adjudication proceedings were instituted and the Collector of Central Excise and Customs passed an order imposing penalty upon the petitioner. On appeal, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench at Madras, set aside the order of the Collector of Customs in so far as this petitioner is concerned. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench at Madras in its order held as follows : "So far as Mrs. Rajee George is concerned, there is nothing on records to show that she was in any way concerned with the day-to-day affairs of the Company". 2. Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the findings of the Tribunal contended that as the very basis of the prosecution is taken away as far as this petitioner is concerned, the prosecution is liable to be quashed. In the decision in Madras Spinners Ltd. v. Dy. 2. Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the findings of the Tribunal contended that as the very basis of the prosecution is taken away as far as this petitioner is concerned, the prosecution is liable to be quashed. In the decision in Madras Spinners Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (1993 (1) KLT 482) the learned single Judge of this Court took the view that so long as the decision of the Tribunal is in force the criminal Court cannot come to a contrary conclusion, as the effect of the decision of the Tribunal is to take away the very basis of the prosecution, the prosecution is liable to be quashed, safeguarding the right of the revenue file fresh complaint in case the order of the Tribunal is set aside. It is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent that the order of the Tribunal has become final as no appeal is filed against the said order. In view of the order of the Tribunal exonerating the petitioner, I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner in the above C.C. No. 78/90, on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam, has to be quashed. Accordingly they are quashed. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of. Petition allowed.