ORDER : (P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.) Accused No.1 in C.C.No.4 of 2012 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam is the petitioner. There are nine more accused. They stand charged for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) by filing this petition to get Annexure A7 final report in C.C.No.4 of 2012 and further proceedings thereon quashed. 2. The petitioner was working as the Superintendent at the unaccompanied baggage section of Air Cargo Complex, Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL) during the period from August 2010 to October 2010. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were the Preventive Officers. Accused No.6 was dealing with electronic goods and had been running shops at Chennai. They hatched a conspiracy to import electronic goods by paying no/nominal customs duty. The petitioner involved a clearing agent at CIAL, Sri.Prince Joseph in the conspiracy. Services of other accused were availed to execute the said plot. 3. On 30.09.2010, officers of the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a Qualis Jeep bearing registration No.TN-63-X-1899 (TN-02-L-2212) at Sriperumbudur, Chennai which carried electronic goods cleared through Air Cargo Complex, CIAL finding that there was evasion of customs duty. The vehicle and the articles were seized. Based on the information, the DRI officials passed on, an unaccompanied baggage originated from Singapore, containing electronic goods was seized at the CIAL on 01.10.2010. There was an attempt to evade customs duty and hence the said articles were also seized. 4. The investigation revealed that not only the said two consignments, but 22 more such instances of importing electronic goods without paying customs duty had occurred. Finding that those acts were done in furtherance of the conspiracy involving accused Nos.1 to 3, who are public servants, and other accused, the final report was filed before the Special Court. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 did so misusing their official positions and for gaining pecuniary advantage. The acts resulted in evasion of customs duty of a huge amount and that amounted to cheating the Customs Department. Annexure A7 final report was filed accordingly. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 did so misusing their official positions and for gaining pecuniary advantage. The acts resulted in evasion of customs duty of a huge amount and that amounted to cheating the Customs Department. Annexure A7 final report was filed accordingly. The Special Court, after considering the prosecution records and hearing both sides, framed charges against the petitioner and his co-accused, which is Annexure A8. 5. Heard Adv.Sri.B.Satheesh Sundar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI. 6. This case originated following seizure of electronic goods worth about Rs.1.35 crores from a Toyota Qualis vehicle, bearing registration No.TN-63-X-1899 (TN-02-L-2212), by the DRI officials at Sriperumbudur, Chennai. One Sri.P.Murugan was the driver and Sri.Kareem Sadhik Basha was the passenger of that vehicle. Their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were recorded. From the information collected from them, surveillance was mounted at Air Cargo Complex, CIAL and baggage declaration of the said Kareem Sadhik Basha submitted through cargo agent Sri.Prince Joseph was located. As against the baggage declaration that the consignment contained blankets, used clothes, books and assorted crockery worth a total value of Rs.2,200/-, the consignment contained electronic goods having a total worth of Rs.1.25 crores. Resultantly, the said articles were also seized. The case of the prosecution is that there were 22 earlier instances of such illegal import and evasion of customs duty; all at the instance of accused No.6 and with the assistance and connivance of the petitioner, and his two subordinates, who are accused Nos.2 and 3, Sri.Prince Joseph and other private individuals. 7. The Department initiated proceedings under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act against the incumbents, including the petitioner. Two show cause notices were issued, copies of which are Annexures A1 and A5. In Annexure A1, the incumbents were asked to show cause why action as contemplated in Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act for illegal import of goods, which were seized on 01.10.2010 and on earlier 20 occasions should not be taken. In Annexure A5, the action contemplated was in respect of seizure of electronic goods and the Toyota Qualis vehicles on 30.09.2010. In Annexure A5, the action contemplated was in respect of seizure of electronic goods and the Toyota Qualis vehicles on 30.09.2010. The petitioner would contend that both the said proceedings culminated in his exoneration and therefore his prosecution which is based on the same set of facts will only be an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the materials considered by the competent authorities in the aforesaid proceedings are the materials placed on reliance by the prosecution herein. When the said materials were found totally insufficient by the appellate and revisional authorities in the first proceedings and by the original authority in the second proceedings to take action against the petitioner, there can be no escape but quashing the criminal proceedings against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance in this regard on Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and another [ (2011) 3 SCC 581 ], Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another [ (2020) 9 SCC 636 ]. A few judgments of various High Courts where the orders in the departmental proceedings were acted upon to quash the criminal proceedings are also placed reliance on. 8. During the investigation, the CBI has taken into account statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act of the persons involved in the incident, besides statements of several other witnesses and materials. Statements of the witnesses examined under Section 164 of the Code were also placed on record. Witness Nos.1 to 3 are approvers. They are,- (i) person who arranged passengers at whose instance the baggages in question were booked, (ii) driver of the Toyota Qualis vehicle and (iii) the cargo agent Sri.Prince Joseph. They were tendered pardon on the condition of their making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within their knowledge relative of the offences and to every person concerned before the trial court. A perusal of Annexure A7 reveals that 150 witnesses have been cited, 311 documents produced and 125 material objects collected for proving the charge levelled against the petitioner and his co-accused. It was after considering the said materials the Special Court framed charge against them vide Annexure A8. A perusal of Annexure A7 reveals that 150 witnesses have been cited, 311 documents produced and 125 material objects collected for proving the charge levelled against the petitioner and his co-accused. It was after considering the said materials the Special Court framed charge against them vide Annexure A8. Having the Special Court, after such consideration, arrived at a conclusion that there was ground for presuming that the petitioner and his co-accused committed the offences, the question immediately arises is as to whether Section 482 of the Code can be invoked in this case. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the law laid down by the Apex court in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others [(2008) 14 SCC 1] is trite that this Court is competent to consider the documents produced by the petitioner in addition to the prosecution materials in order for preventing abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. It is submitted that the unimpeachable documents produced by the petitioner, namely, Annexures A3, A4 and A6 would establish that the charge set forth against the petitioner is unsupported by any reliable material and the charge against him would only be groundless. It is his further submission that when the witnesses who gave statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act retracted in the departmental proceedings, the rest of the evidence, the prosecution can rely upon is the statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code. Those statements have no reliability, especially in the light of the retraction from their statements by the material witnesses. It is accordingly urged that this Court has no other option than quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. 10. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 ] , a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held in unequivocal terms that at the time of framing charge, the trial court has no power to consider any materials produced by the accused. 10. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 ] , a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held in unequivocal terms that at the time of framing charge, the trial court has no power to consider any materials produced by the accused. It was further held that the High Court can, in the interest of justice, exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of a court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, and the High Court, in that exercise, can even act upon materials of unimpeachable character and of sterling quality produced by the accused. The question whether the aforesaid observations make out any conflict was considered by the Apex court in Rukmini Narvekar (supra) and it was held: “38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such materials as are indicated in Section 227 Cr.P.C . can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 Cr.P.C . the Court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 ] by the larger Bench to which the very same question had been referred.” 11. Thus, in appropriate cases this Court is justified in banking on the materials produced by the accused. While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code, the powers of the High Court to look at the documents produced by the accused is thus more liberal. The learned counsel for the petitioner places much reliance on Annexures A3, A4 and A6 to contend that the charge against the petitioner would only be groundless. While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code, the powers of the High Court to look at the documents produced by the accused is thus more liberal. The learned counsel for the petitioner places much reliance on Annexures A3, A4 and A6 to contend that the charge against the petitioner would only be groundless. Although the original authority as per Annexure A2 order imposed a penalty against the petitioner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, that order was set aside by the appellate authority vide Annexure A3. The Revenue preferred a revision, but the same was dismissed as per Annexure A4. That order has become final. Similarly, the proceedings initiated by issuing Annexure A5 show cause notice culminated in exonerating the petitioner. Annexure A6 is the order. The finding was that no penalty was imposable on the petitioner under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act for want of valid evidence. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the evidence proposed by the Department was found insufficient to penalize the petitioner for the acts in question. The evidence considered by the said authorities was mostly the statements of the incumbents and other witnesses under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It can be seen from the said orders and also Annexure A2 that the material witnesses retracted from their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. After appreciating such contradictory statements of the witnesses cited by the Department and also the statement of explanation by the petitioner, the authorities held that there was lack of valid evidence entailing imposition of penalty against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvasses for a position that in the light of those findings which were in respect of the same allegations as set out in Annexure A7 final report and same set of evidence, there is no scope for a valid prosecution of the petitioner. 13. The Apex Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) 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. 13. The Apex Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) 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 proceeding 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 proceeding 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 person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.” 14. The said principles were followed in Ashoo Surendra Nath 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 counsel for the petitioner in support of the plea for quashing Annexure A7 final report. 15. The Apex Court in the aforementioned decisions laid down the principle that where the allegations in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution are identical and the person concerned has been exonerated in the adjudication proceedings on merits and in accordance with law, trial of that person shall ordinarily be an abuse of the process of the court. Of course, the same set of facts have been alleged in both the proceedings. But the consideration in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal prosecution are different inasmuch as misuse of the official position of the petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 3 for obtaining pecuniary advantage vis-a-vis loss of revenue by doing the acts in question created the difference altogether. Further, the evidence let in before the departmental authorities and the evidence proposed in the criminal prosecution are totally different. 16. In Annexure A7 final report, witnesses No.1 to 3 are the approvers. In order to corroborate their evidence, statements of other witnesses, particularly witness Nos.39, 98 and documents like call data recording (CDR), etc. have been produced. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, CDR may not bring in evidence anything about the conversation, but the frequency in calls between the petitioner and Sri. Prince Joseph during and around the relevant dates would support the other evidence. 17. Value and description of the articles, freight charges, etc. of all the 24 consignments, including the articles seized on 29.09.2010 at Sriperumbudur and on 01.10.2010 at the Cargo Terminal at CIAL are tabulated in the final report. Descriptions of the articles as contained in the declaration submitted by the passengers concerned through witness No.3, the approver are also mentioned. The same is extracted below for below for the convenience of reference: 18. A perusal of the above certainly raises eyebrows. Each time the articles were declared to be blanket, used clothes, used cooking utensils and so on and so forth. For such articles having declared value of less than Rs.10,000/- freight charges ranging from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.85,000/- were seen paid. The passengers are from Chennai and they preferred Ernakulam to Chennai to book cargo, which is inconvenient and unusual. From the description of articles, weight and the cost, the freight charges paid were apparently illogical. Such intriguing circumstance was enough to have a thorough check of the baggages. The documents produced by the prosecution would show that there was no serious inspection and inventorisation. 19. The learned Standing Counsel urges that the petitioner being the Superintendent of Baggages was obliged to ascertain the nature of articles and ensure payment of due customs duty, but he conspicuously failed in the present instances. The documents produced by the prosecution would show that there was no serious inspection and inventorisation. 19. The learned Standing Counsel urges that the petitioner being the Superintendent of Baggages was obliged to ascertain the nature of articles and ensure payment of due customs duty, but he conspicuously failed in the present instances. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Annexure A9 customs inspection circular does not cast such an obligation on the petitioner. It was for the Preventive Officers to check and report the details. In this regard the learned counsel would point out that the copy of Annexure A9 produced along with Annexure A7 final report did not contain page No.8 where the procedure for baggage examination was mentioned. The submission is that the prosecution purposely avoided production of that page with a view to suppress such a material aspect from the court. 20. Annexure A10 is a complete copy of Annexure A9, which did not contain page No.8. The procedure for examination of unaccompanied baggages has been described at page No.8. That page was omitted in Annexure A10. That cannot, however, be treated as a purposeful act inasmuch as the procedure mentioned therein does not exclude the Superintendent totally from the obligation of examining unaccompanied baggages. The said directions insist on examination of every unaccompanied baggage by the Preventive Officer and countercheck by the Superintendent. It is the duty of the Superintendent to give out customs charge orders. Therefore, suppression of the said document cannot have the necessary effect of incriminating the petitioner baselessly and, the said contention of the petitioner does not have merit. 21. The records produced by the prosecution would show that the examination of baggages in question were cursory and in total disregard of the standing instructions. Articles were not examined or inventorised. When there occurred such a conspicuous lapse, that, on the face of the declared value, volume of the articles and freight charges paid leads to the inevitable conclusion that there was a clandestine deal in clearing the baggages in question. That aspect has not been considered at all by the departmental authorities while exonerating the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the findings in Annexures A3, A4 and A6 are by considering the materials concerning the transactions which are produced along with Annexure A7 final report. That aspect has not been considered at all by the departmental authorities while exonerating the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the findings in Annexures A3, A4 and A6 are by considering the materials concerning the transactions which are produced along with Annexure A7 final report. Therefore the said orders would not stand in the way of prosecuting the petitioner. 22. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration [ (1976) 1 SCC 727 ] is that the statement of witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code cannot be given any evidentiary value, especially, in view of the retraction from such statements by the witnesses concerned. It was held in the said decision that the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation cannot be used for any purpose other than for contradiction in view of the bar created by the proviso to Section 162 of the Code. That principle cannot have application at this stage since that is a question that arises at the stage of trial and appreciation of evidence. 23. The High Court in a proceedings for quashing of a criminal case is not ordinarily expected to appreciate the defence of the accused; neither would it consider the documents on which the accused relies. Of course, in exceptional cases, public documents or such other document veracity whereof is not disputed can be considered. The same is the principle laid down in Mohd.Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar and another [ (2019) 13 SCC 350 ] also. Therefore, the documents produced by the petitioner, namely, Annexures A3, A4 and A6 can certainly be acted upon. But the findings therein are not available to the help of the petitioner to get Annexure A7 final report quashed in view of the reasons mentioned hereinbefore. The contention that the evidence which would be brought on record through the witnesses cited in Annexure A7 would only be contradictory owing to their retraction from their previous statements, while examined before the departmental authorities, cannot be countenanced. Three of such witnesses are approvers. They as well as a few other witnesses gave statements under Section 164 of the Code and materials produced by the prosecution have the potential of corroborating the oral version of the approvers. Three of such witnesses are approvers. They as well as a few other witnesses gave statements under Section 164 of the Code and materials produced by the prosecution have the potential of corroborating the oral version of the approvers. When that is the factual scenario, the findings in the departmental proceedings are insufficient to quash Annexure A7. The question whether or not the oral evidence proposed by the prosecution can be believed and acted upon is in the realm of appreciation of evidence and cannot be a factor which enables this Court to quash the final report. In such a view of the matters, this petition can only fail. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.