A. K. BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THE hearing stems from an application under section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioner, praying for setting aside the order dated 15. 03. 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta and also for quashing the proceeding being Complaint Case No. 2415/02 under section 56 read with sections 64 (2)/68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. ( 2 ) M/s. Greenways Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. which is the sole agent in India of Uniglory Marine Corporation, Taipai, Taiwan, having branch offices in all the major ports including Calcutta and Cochin, handles export/import. At the beginning of 1997 S. S. K. Exports Ltd. booked 14 x 40' and 1 x 20' containers for destination Moscow. While enroute, the said exporter S. S. K. Exports requested four times in writing for diverting the containers to Dubai instead of Moscow and M/s. Greenways Shipping under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act was bound to comply with it without knowledge that the said S. S. K. Exports made the exports under a scheme "exports of goods and Services against payment of trade credit granted by erstwhile Soviet Union". The said s. S. K. Exports claimed benefits and received the same for having made the exports under the scheme to Moscow whereas the goods instead of going to Moscow had gone to the hard currency area of Dubai. ( 3 ) THE Enforcement Department after investigation started adjudication proceeding under section 51 of the Act, and the notice was issued amongst others to the petitioners asking them to show cause as to why penalty will not be imposed upon them. The Special Director as an adjudicating authority after full analysis of all the materials collected during investigation found the petitioners not in day-to-day management of the Company, that they were not even aware of the subject matter of the said show cause notice that the entire transaction took place without their knowledge and that the contravention was made by the Company's branches in Cochin and Calcutta, for which shri M. K. M. Nair Mani and Shri P. Sengupta were responsible and thus by order dated 21. 05. 2003 exonerated the petitioners from all the charges. 05. 2003 exonerated the petitioners from all the charges. ( 4 ) AS the above complaint was lodged on the same set of facts and the petitioners were exonerated from all the charges by the adjudicating authority which is binding on the Criminal Court, the petitioners prayed for the discharge which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 15. 03. 2004. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order and continuance of the proceeding, the petitioners have come up before this court. ( 6 ) MR. Bagchi, learned counsel for the petitioners, on referring as many as seven decisions viz. Uttam Chand v. Income Tax Officer, Central circle, Amritsar, reported in (1982)2 SCC 543 , G. L. Didwania v. I. T. O. . reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 724, P. S. Rajyav. State of Bihar, reported in JT 1996 (6) SC 480, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. R. Agarwal, reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 370, Rqjesh Kothari v. A. S. Bandhopadhyay, reported in 2001 C. Cr. LR (Cal) 143, Gopal Das Mundar v. Assistant Collector of Customs, reported in 2002 (1) CHN 612 and jagmohan Jindal v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2004 (2) CHN 106 advanced argument contending that since his clients were exonerated of all the charges by the adjudicating authority in the absence of any evidence indicating that the contravention took place with their knowledge and that Shri M. K. M. Nair Mani and Shri. P. Sengupta were held responsible for the contravention and the petitioners have no knowledge even of the transaction, continuation of the above criminal proceeding on the same set of facts and allegation against the petitioners will be an abuse of the process of the Court and as such the said proceeding should be quashed. Mr. De, learned counsel for the O. P. , on the other hand, relying upon the cases of Srnt. Nagawwa v. V. S. Konjalgi, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947 , Assistant Collector of Customs, bombay v. L. R. Melwani. reported in AIR 1970 SC 962 . Directorate of enforcement v. M/s. M. C. T. M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. . reported in 1996 c. Cr. LR (SC) 71 and M/s. Ganapati Exports Ltd. v. S. Pervez, reported in 2004 C. Cr. reported in AIR 1970 SC 962 . Directorate of enforcement v. M/s. M. C. T. M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. . reported in 1996 c. Cr. LR (SC) 71 and M/s. Ganapati Exports Ltd. v. S. Pervez, reported in 2004 C. Cr. LR (Cal) 1149, submitted that the decision of the adjudicatory authority does not amount to a verdict of acquittal in favour of the petitioners nor the criminal proceeding is dependent upon the result of adjudication proceeding and so the question of quashing the criminal proceeding is immaterial. ( 7 ) QUASHING of proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or ot herwise to secure the ends of justice may be done where: (1) it appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged e. g. absence of requisite sanction, or (2) the allegations in the FIR or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged, or (3) the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. That apart, the power to quash a criminal proceeding by this Court can be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases'. In this connection, reference may be made to the cases of R. P. Kapurv. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and M. Narayandas v. State of kamataka, reported in 2004 SCC (Cr) 118. ( 8 ) SECTION 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 deals with offences and prosecution, providing that without prejudice to any award of penalty by the adjudicating officer under the Act, if any person contravenes any of the provisions of the Act or any rule etc. he shall upon conviction be punishable. Sub-section (2) of section 64 by fiction makes an attempt or abetment on the part of any person a contravention of the provisions, rule etc. , while section 68 deals with offences by companies. he shall upon conviction be punishable. Sub-section (2) of section 64 by fiction makes an attempt or abetment on the part of any person a contravention of the provisions, rule etc. , while section 68 deals with offences by companies. ( 9 ) INDUBITABLY, the present four petitioners were exonerated by the adjudicatory authority of all the charges by order dated 21. 05. 2003. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder: "on an objective evaluation of the evidences brought on record, the factual picture thrown up a sequel to the adjudication proceedings, and the well-settled legal position discussed in the preceding paragraphs 76 to 79, I am convinced that both S/shri M. K. M. Nair Mani and P. Sengupta (noticee nos. 10 and 11) have to be held responsible for the contraventions in terms of section 65 of the FERA, 1973 vis-a-vis the charges held as established against M/s. Greenways. As regards S/shri F. V. Arul, Shri Prakash, dhurvendra Prakash and Smt. Roshni Beriwala (noticee Nos. 6. 7, 8 and9 respectively ). I find that the charges against these four noticees fall to stand the test of proof - there being no evidence to indicate that the contravention took place with their knowledge. In fact, the papers on record demonstrate that the contraventions occurred without their knowledge and were committed by the shipping company's branches in Cochin and Kolkata for which S/shri M. K. M. Nair Mani and P. Sengupta (noticee Nos. 10 and 11 respectively) have been held responsible. Thus, all considered the charges against S/shri F. V. Arul, shri Prakash. Dhurvendra Prakash and Smt. Roshni Beriwala (noticee nos. 6, 7. 8 and 9 respectively) cannot survive as established". ( 10 ) ONE of the guidelines for quashing a proceeding as laid down in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, referred to in the case of Rajya (supra), is whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. The standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than that of a departmental proceeding where preponderance of evidence is required. The standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than that of a departmental proceeding where preponderance of evidence is required. So, in the present case, if the charge in the departmental proceeding which is identical with the charge in the criminal proceeding could not be established due to the nature of evidence as above and the petitioners were exonerated of all the charges, their trial before the criminal Court would be an exercise in futility. In this context the following observation of the Apex court in the case of M. J. Scindia v. S. C. Angre, reported in 1988 SCC (Cr) 234 is worth mentioning: "the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. " The case of P. S. Rajya (supra) may also be referred to where the appellant was proceeded under section 5 (2)read with section 5 (l) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the appellant having been exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission, it was held that if the charge which is identical could not be established departmental proceedings one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceeding and as such the criminal proceeding was quashed. The case of G. L. Didwania (supra) may also be relied on where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the finding of the assessing authority that the appellant-assessee made a false statement in respect of income of Young India Company, it was held that when the prosecution proceeding are based on the same set of facts, in respect of which the Tribunal had exonerated the appellants, there can be no justification for continuing to maintain the prosecution proceeding. In the case of Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (supra) the Court quashed the criminal proceeding against the accused respondents on the basis of the complaints filed by the Deputy Chief controller of Imports and Exports observing that having regard to the material existing against the respondents and the reasons and findings given in the orders, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by the trial of the accused respondents in the criminal Court. ( 11 ) SIMILAR view was taken by this Court in cases of Rajesh Kothari (supra) and Jagmohan Jindal (supra) holding that when the principal accused was exonerated of the charges in the adjudication proceeding, the criminal proceeding under section 135 (l) (a) (b) (i) of the Customs Act initiated against the accused on the self-same charges is not maintainable. In the Division Bench decision of this Court in Gopal das Mundar (supra) it was held:. . . "we should not be taken to have ruled that we hold that such a prosecution cannot lie. But all that we say that, once it appears, and it has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Customs authority that the departmental proceedings initiated by that department itself on the same set of facts has terminated in favour of the accused, it would amount to a misuse of the process of law to prosecute the accused for the same thing under the criminal law. That being so. we are inclined to hold that the prosecution, so far it relates to the charge under section 135 (l) (b) of the Customs Act, should be quashed. " ( 12 ) THE facts and circumstances of the decision in Smt. Nagawwa (supra) so referred to by Mr. De being quite different, the same has no manner of application in the present case. " ( 12 ) THE facts and circumstances of the decision in Smt. Nagawwa (supra) so referred to by Mr. De being quite different, the same has no manner of application in the present case. In Melwani (supra) it was held that criminal prosecution of the accused for alleged smuggling is not barred merely because proceedings were earlier instituted against him before the Collector of Customs and that the rule of autre fois acquit cannot be invoked. It is well settled that section 300 Cr PC applies only to offences for which charges might have been framed at previous trial, which is not involved here. The facts and circumstances of the said decision too being quite different, the aforesaid ratio is not attracted to the present case. So far as the case of M/s. M. C. T. M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, two issues involved were whether existence of mens rea is a necessary ingredient for establishing contravention of section 10 of FERA. 1947 and (2) whether section 10 (1) of the Act is not an independent provision making its contravention by itself punishable, to which the first answer was in the negative and second answer was in the positive, and so the said decision is not becoming of any aid to the O. P. As regards the Special Bench decision of this Court in M/s. Ganapati Exports Ltd. (supra) which involved contravention of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the issue fell for decision there is whether complaint under section 56 of the Act was premature as the award of penalty was still awaited which was answered in the negative holding that the criminal proceeding initiated against the offender being different from and in addition to the proceeding initiated before an adjudicating officer under section 51 of the Act is maintainable. Accordingly, the said ratio of decision too is not attracted here. ( 13 ) IN the light of the above decision, when the adjudicatory authority found the petitioners not liable for contravention of any provision of the act and exonerated them of all the charges, prosecuting them on the basis of same set of facts before a criminal Court, in my considered view, is manifestly unjust and amounts to persecution and abuse of the process of the Court, and as such the prosecution is liable to be quashed. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the present application be allowed. The impugned order be set aside and the criminal proceeding being complaint Case no. C-2415/02 against the petitioners pending in the Court of learned metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta be quashed. In view of the above decision, application being CRAN 1568/05 being redundant be dismissed. Application allowed