ORDER : (P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.) The 3 rd accused in C.C No.1 of 2020 pending before the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner. Annexure A1 is the final report, based on which C.C.No.1 of 2020 was instituted. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Code) seeking to quash Annexure A1 and further proceedings thereon. 2. The petitioner was the Superintendent of Customs, in charge of hand baggage x-ray scanning machine at the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, the 1 st accused was a Havildar and the 4 th accused, who turned approver, was a Superintendent, Customs, Air Intelligence unit. The 2 nd accused Sabeer Abdul Karim was an international passenger. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 10.03.2018 the 2 nd accused who came from Dubai at the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram had with him 980.100 grams of gold worth Rs.30.28 lakhs enclosed in a wallet. The 1 st accused who was on duty clandestinely collected the said wallet from the 2 nd accused and furtively came out avoiding the x-ray machine. The 2 nd accused was therefore able to pass through the x-ray scanner and get customs clearance. The wallet containing gold was later recovered from the 1 st accused by the 4 th accused. 3. The further allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the 4 th accused hatched a conspiracy for saving the 1 st accused and resultantly a mahazar and seizure memo were prepared stating that the recovery of gold was effected from the possession of the 2 nd accused himself. The petitioner in pursuance of that conspiracy prepared a false letter dated 10.03.2018 showing that the gold was recovered from the possession of the 2 nd accused, for depositing the contraband in the customs warehouse. While accused Nos.1,2 and 4 thus allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(PC Act), the petitioner along with other accused allegedly had committed offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 167, 193 and 201 of the IPC. The petitioner contends that the allegations in Annexure A1 final report, even accepting on its face value, would not make out the offences alleged against her and therefore Annexure A1 is liable to be quashed. 4. The petitioner contends that the allegations in Annexure A1 final report, even accepting on its face value, would not make out the offences alleged against her and therefore Annexure A1 is liable to be quashed. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appeared on instructions for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI. 5. Going by the case of the prosecution, the gold in question was seized by the approver (4 th accused) from the possession of the 1 st accused whereas, documents such as seizure mahazar and seizure memo which are Annexure A5 and A6 were prepared as if the gold was seized from the possession of the 2 nd accused. The 1 st accused was a head Havildar on duty and she collected the wallet containing gold from the 2 nd accused with a view to avoid detection in x-ray examination and thereby to save customs duty. She did so to help the 2 nd accused misusing her official position and for obtaining pecuniary advantage. The 1 st accused took the wallet along the backside of x-ray scanner, where the petitioner was on duty. Such a furtive attempt of the 1 st accused was noticed by the approver and she was intercepted. The wallet contained gold and that resulted in the seizure. Annexure A5 was however, prepared in such a manner that the gold was seized from the possession of the 2 nd accused. The allegation is that the petitioner/3 rd accused and the approver connived to prepare Annexures A5 and A6, and the petitioner prepared Annexure A13 letter for depositing the contraband gold with the customs warehouse in tune with the seizure mahazar and memo. That amounted to preparing incorrect documents, creation of false evidence and screening of evidence. The object behind it was to save the 1 st accused from criminal prosecution. 6. The evidence proposed by the prosecution to establish the allegations against the petitioner is essentially the oral testimonies of the approver, witness No.4 Sri.Gopirajan, the CCTV footage and the ancillary aspects. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the evidence proposed by the prosecution is totally insufficient to establish complicity of the petitioner with the alleged offences. It is further submitted that in the departmental proceedings: the disciplinary proceedings as well as the proceedings under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner was absolved. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the evidence proposed by the prosecution is totally insufficient to establish complicity of the petitioner with the alleged offences. It is further submitted that in the departmental proceedings: the disciplinary proceedings as well as the proceedings under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner was absolved. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another [ (2020) 9 SCC 636 ] , it is urged that in the light of her exoneration in the departmental proceedings, the criminal proceedings against her is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that the respondent in total disregard of the protection available under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act and Section 197 of the Code launched prosecution against her. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI on the other hand would submit that the materials collected by the prosecution are sufficient to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. She was fully aware about the seizure of gold from the possession of the 1 st accused. The statement of the approver recorded under Section 164 of the Code and also the statement of witness No.4 Shri Gopirajan are enough to establish her complicity. The dubious way of preparing Annexure A13 deposit memo supports the said case. The deposit was made only on 11.03.2018, whereas the seizure was on 10.03.2018. It is further submitted that the departmental proceedings were for different purposes and exoneration of the petitioner in those proceedings cannot be a reason to claim quashing of the criminal proceedings. It is urged that when sufficient materials are placed before the court, and a charge is already framed by the Special Court, the petitioner is liable to face the trial and the present petition is to be dismissed. 8. The Apex Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal[ (2011) 3 SCC 581 ] laid down the parameters governing relevance of the decision in an adjudication proceedings in a criminal proceedings. Paragraph No.38 of the decision contains the ratio which reads: “38. 8. The Apex Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal[ (2011) 3 SCC 581 ] laid down the parameters governing relevance of the decision in an adjudication proceedings in a criminal proceedings. Paragraph No.38 of the decision contains the ratio which reads: “38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows :- (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and (vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.” 9. The said principles were followed in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra). Reiterating the said principle, the Apex court in J.Sekar Alias Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement [ (2022) 7 SCC 370 ] held that when departmental proceedings were ordered in favour of the accused and the investigation concerning the scheduled offence ended in a closure for want of sufficient materials justifying a prosecution, the prosecution for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was unsustainable. The said principle was highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in support of the plea for quashing Annexure A1 final report. 10. The learned Senior Counsel is right in submitting that Annexure A4 order exonerating the petitioner from the disciplinary proceedings as well as Annexure A14 show cause notice concerning action under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act wherein the petitioner was not implicated are of relevant consideration in this petition. 10. The learned Senior Counsel is right in submitting that Annexure A4 order exonerating the petitioner from the disciplinary proceedings as well as Annexure A14 show cause notice concerning action under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act wherein the petitioner was not implicated are of relevant consideration in this petition. Of course, whether the findings thereon are enough to quash Annexure A1 final report depends upon the identity of allegations in both the proceedings and the nature of findings in the departmental proceedings. In the circumstances of this case, it is desirable to consider the question as to sufficiency of materials to prosecute the petitioner before considering the aforementioned aspect. 11. Subsequent to filing of this petition, the Special Court framed a charge against the petitioner and her co-accused. Annexure A21 is a copy of the charge. By framing a charge the Special Court found that the prosecution materials made out a case to presume that the petitioner had committed the offences in question. That does not, however, stand in the way of this court deciding the question of quashment of the final report especially, in the light of the unimpeachable documents produced by the petitioner which are concerning the departmental proceedings. 12. Indisputably, the gold was enclosed in a wallet. Even if the petitioner noticed the wallet in the possession of the 1 st accused that by itself would not be enough to hold that the petitioner knew about the dubious act of the 1 st accused. I have gone through the statement given by the approver under Section 164 of the Code and also the statement of witness No.4 given under Section 161 of the Code. In those statements there is no definite assertion that the petitioner was aware of the 1 st accused’s furtive attempt of carrying the gold. Of course, they stated that at the time of preparing Annexure A13 letter for deposit of the seized gold, the petitioner was aware that its seizure was from the 1 st accused and not from the 2 nd accused. 13. It may be noted that Annexure A13 was prepared based on the seizure mahazar and seizure memo which are Annexures A5 and A6. The materials produced by the prosecution would not show that the petitioner had any role in preparing Annexures A5 and A6. 13. It may be noted that Annexure A13 was prepared based on the seizure mahazar and seizure memo which are Annexures A5 and A6. The materials produced by the prosecution would not show that the petitioner had any role in preparing Annexures A5 and A6. If so, she should have acted upon the said documents while preparing the deposit letter, Annexure A13. When such an inference is possible from the materials on record, there should be tangible evidence to prosecute the petitioner. The other evidence tendered by the prosecution is the CCTV footage and the discrepancy in preparing Annexure A13. Those items of the evidence independently cannot establish any guilt on the part of the petitioner. They rather would not render sufficient corroboration to the oral testimonies of the approver and witness No.4 insofar as the petitioner’s role in creating false documents. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the materials collected by the prosecution are insufficient for a successful prosecution of the petitioner for the offences alleged against her. 14. Of course, the criteria for deciding the question concerning quashment of the final report is not that whether there could be a conviction on the basis of the materials produced by the prosecution. The consideration is only whether the materials brought on record, if uncontroverted, would prima facie make out commission of the offences. Here, the materials are insufficient to make out commission of the aforementioned offences by the petitioner. When the petitioner was absolved from the disciplinary proceedings and no penalty proceedings was initiated against her, that would, in the aforementioned circumstances, enable the petitioner to claim quashing of the criminal proceedings against her. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a trial of the petitioner based on the available materials will be an abuse of the process of law. In view of that, the question whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code is required to prosecute the petitioner or is she entitled to get protection under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act are of only academic importance. Hence, I leave those questions undecided. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A1 final report as against the petitioner is quashed.