Judgment :- These three Crl.O.Ps are filed by the manufacturers and exporters of finished leather. According to the manufacturers, the production of finished leather involves 25 operations and mainly they are technical in nature. Part of the operations are manual. Exports are made through Customs House. When the goods were tried to be exported, the Assistant Collector took samples and found that they did not satisfy the test of finished leather; when they were sent to the Central Leather Research Institute, it found that the same were not "finished leather" according to the standards fixed by them. Therefore, the containers containing leathers were seized. W.P.No.18356/97 was filed by the manufacturers and the goods were taken delivery of on deposit of 5% of the value of the goods. Thereafter, the Collector, Customs levied the penalty and fine which was equivalent to the value of the goods. The Commissioner of Customs also came to the conclusion based upon the opinion of the Central Leather Research Institute that the goods were not finished leather. Against that, the manufacturers filed an appeal to Custom, Excise and Gold (Control)Appellate Tribunal.(CEGAT). CEGAT accepted the plea of the accused and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. 2.In the mean while the Criminal prosecution was launched in C.C.Nos.2/1999, 231/1998 and 229/1999 and witnesses were examined. 3.At this stage, the petitions have been filed to quash the complaints. 4.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V. Ramachandran for M/s Anitha Sumanth appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied on two decisions. In the first decision in MOHAMED I. UNJAWALA AND OTHERS V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (VOL.213 ITR 190) it has been held that, "The findings of the Tribunal on the facts are final and the High Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the statements of fact made by the Tribunal. Therefore, the criminal court is bound to accept the findings of the Tribunal, on questions of fact."....."But the facts found by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee cannot be disturbed by the High Court as the Tribunal is the fact-finding authority." Another decision in H.T.L.LIMITED V. UNION OF INDIA ( 1999 (113) E.L.T.30(Mad.)it has been held that continuation of proceedings misplaced once adjudicating authority and Tribunal have held that there was no wilful default or intention to evade Central Excise duty on assessee's part. 5.Relying upon these two decisions, the learned Senior counsel submits that the Tribunal has given a finding on fact that it was not an unfinished leather, but it is only a finished leather and therefore, set aside the order of confiscation imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. Hence, this finding that the goods were not unfinished has to be accepted by the Trial Court and it is binding upon the Criminal Court. Therefore, there is no need for the petitioners herein to face the prosecution even after the decision rendered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners have a right to approach this Court under 482 Cr.P.C. 6.The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the charges that are framed against the petitioners are under Section 420 read 511, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 132, 114 of the Customs Act. The learned Senior Counsel submits that I.P.C. offences are only consequential of offences under Customs Act. Once the offences under Customs Act goes the prosecution under I.P.C. cannot stand. Therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Senior counsel pointed out that the Tribunal in its order has stated that, 'The whole dispute has arisen only because of variations, inaccuracies in mechanical operations or the difference between experts and traders with regard to grades. There was no effort to export prohibited goods.' Therefore, this finding that there was no effort to export prohibited goods is a finding of fact and it is binding on the parties including the criminal court. Therefore, I.P.C. offences which is germane from the offences under Customs Act also cannot stand. Therefore, in the interests of justice, the petitioners have a right to approach this Court under Section 482 I.P.C. and the complaints pending against them are liable to be quashed. 7.Mr.N.Renganathan, Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I cases submits that in Criminal cases connected to Crl.O.P.No.23137/2000 all the prosecution witnesses except the Investigating Officer has been examined; in so far as Crl.O.P.No.23138/2000 and 23139 of 2000 are concerned all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also over. On the side of the defence witnesses, one of the witnesses has been examined. Therefore, at this stage, the petitions under Section 482 does not lie and therefore, these petitions are liable to be dismissed. On the side of the defence witnesses, one of the witnesses has been examined. Therefore, at this stage, the petitions under Section 482 does not lie and therefore, these petitions are liable to be dismissed. In support of this contention, the learned Special Public Prosecutor pointed out a decision in AMAR CHAND AGARWALA V. SHANTI BOSE AND ANOTHER (1973 Crl.L.J. 577) wherein it has been held as follows: "Where the accused moved the High Court at the time when the trial was almost committing to a close and what remained to be done was the examination of two prosecution and one Court witnesses and the High Court quashed the charge and the entire proceedings on the grounds that the complainant suppressed material facts and that the evidence on record did not establish the alleged offence, the order was liable to be set aside. The proper course at that stage to be adopted by the High Court was to allow the proceedings to go on and to come to its logical conclusion, one way or the other, and decline to interfere with those proceedings." 8.The learned Special Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the Tribunal has passed this order mainly for the reason that, "the appellants are only seeking permission to take the goods back to the units and to make good the deficiencies." The Tribunal was influenced only on the request made by the petitioners to take back the goods for the purpose of rectification of the deficiencies. Therefore, this is not the reason for allowing the appeal. It has no bearing on the complaints before the Criminal Court. In the complaints before the Criminal Courts they have attempted to export these goods. Once goods were found to have crossed the customs barriers into the port for the purpose of export, attempt to export is complete. Therefore, when the goods were found to be deficient with the standard prescribed, the attempt to export deficient goods is also complete. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal has no bearing on the complaints pending before the Criminal Court. 9.Further, the learned Special Public Prosecutor pointed out that in this case complaints are filed on a police report. Once charges have been framed it can end either in acquittal or in conviction. Therefore, the petitions to discharge cannot be filed. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal has no bearing on the complaints pending before the Criminal Court. 9.Further, the learned Special Public Prosecutor pointed out that in this case complaints are filed on a police report. Once charges have been framed it can end either in acquittal or in conviction. Therefore, the petitions to discharge cannot be filed. The petitions to discharge can be filed only at the earliest point of time before framing of charges. Once charges are framed, the only end is acquittal or conviction. Further, when there is a specific provision under Section 239 Cr.P.C., resort to Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not permissible. Section 482 Cr.P.C. will apply only when there is no specific provision. For this reason, the petitions filed herein are liable to be dismissed and they have no merits. 10.This Court, at this stage, does not want to go into the merits of this case. Any opinion expressed by this Court may cause prejudice to either of the parties before Criminal Court. As held by the Supreme Court in the decision 1973 Crl.L.J. 577 when the proceedings before the Criminal Court have also reached final stage, it is not proper for the this Court to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the complaints. Therefore, the Crl.O.P.Nos.23137 to 23139 of 2000 are dismissed. Consequently, all the connected pending Crl.M.Ps. are also dismissed. 11.The petitioners are entitled to raise all these points before the Trial Court. On considering the same, the Trial Court shall pass orders on merits.