The department dropped the penalty proceedings against me after finding the charge not made out. Can it still run the criminal prosecution on exactly the same allegation?
No, on these facts. The Supreme Court divided. Sathasivam J would have dismissed the appeal, holding that adjudication and prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act are independent and that the adjudicating officer's exoneration is at most a point for the accused to urge before the Magistrate. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, with Bedi J, declined to subscribe to that view, so the majority allowed the appeal and the prosecution could not continue. The majority accepted that the two proceedings are independent and can run together, but treated it as a different question once the adjudication has ended in exoneration on the same allegation.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ, with a separate judgment by P. Sathasivam, J; majority judgment by Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J) on 2011-02-18, reported as (2011) 333 ITR 58; (2011) 3 SCC 581; 2011 Cri LJ 1747; 2011 AIR SCW 1479; (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721. It bears on section 276C of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Prosecution and Penalty matters.
This is the case tax practitioners cite when a prosecution under section 276C survives the collapse of the penalty or assessment proceeding on the same facts. It is the Supreme Court's fullest treatment of the relationship between a departmental adjudication and a criminal trial on the same allegation, and it works through the earlier authorities - L.R. Melwani, Standard Chartered Bank, K.G. Premshanker, Iqbal Singh Marwah and K.C. Builders v CIT - which had pulled in different directions. It matters because the department's standard answer is that the two proceedings are independent, and this judgment accepts that proposition in terms and then holds it does not decide the case where the adjudication has already ended in the assessee's favour on the merits.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Enforcement Directorate officers searched premises occupied by the appellant in May 1992, arrested him under section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and recorded his statement on several dates. The Directorate took the view that he had paid Rs.24,75,000 to one Piyush Kumar Barodia in March and April 1992 as consideration for the receipt of US$ 75,000 abroad at Rs.33 to the dollar against an official rate of about Rs.30, contravening sections 8(2) and 9(1)(f)(i) read with section 64(2). A show cause notice was issued in May 1993 and adjudication proceedings under section 51 followed. The Special Director dropped the proceedings, holding that it had not been proved that the sum was actually paid, that the only material against the appellant was his name and telephone number in documents seized from Barodia together with a retracted statement, and that the benefit of doubt had to be given. The Directorate did not challenge that order and it became final. On the same allegation the Directorate prosecuted the appellant under section 56 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, who refused to drop the proceedings; the Calcutta High Court rejected his revision.
The Court was divided. Sathasivam J, in the judgment reproduced in full in the harvested text, held that on the scheme of the Act the adjudication and the prosecution are distinct and separate, that the absence of a proviso such as section 23D of the 1947 Act shows the legislature intended them to be independent, that no finding in adjudication binds the criminal court, and that the Special Director's order of 18 November 1996 was at most a point for the appellant to place before the Magistrate; he dismissed the appeal. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, writing for himself and Bedi J, opened by saying that they were unable to subscribe to that view. The majority agreed that proceedings under sections 51 and 56 are independent, that a finding in adjudication does not bind the criminal court and that a prosecution can be launched before the adjudication concludes, but framed the question before them as the different one of what follows when the adjudication has culminated first in exoneration. The majority being two of the three judges, the appeal succeeded.
The majority set out the statutory scheme: section 50 fixes the penalty, section 51 requires the adjudicating officer to be satisfied after inquiry that a contravention has been committed, and section 56 opens with the words without prejudice to any award of penalty, so that prosecution is not conditional on adjudication. It accepted, following Standard Chartered Bank v Directorate of Enforcement, that nothing in the Act makes a finding in adjudication binding on the criminal court and that the two can go hand in hand. It then isolated the question actually before it: where the penalty proceeding and the prosecution were launched together but the penalty proceeding ended earlier by exonerating the person, can the prosecution continue on the same allegation. The Additional Solicitor General's answer, that the adjudication finding operates neither as estoppel nor as res judicata and that the Constitution Bench in Assistant Collector of Customs v L.R. Melwani was against the appellant, was rejected: the majority said the decision relied on had no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case, pointing out that Melwani was about issue estoppel and autrefois acquit under Article 20(2) and section 403 of the old Code, which required a verdict of acquittal in a previous lawful trial before a competent court. The paragraphs in which the majority developed its own test and made its order are not in the harvested text.
the proceedings under Section 51 and 56 of the Act are independent of each other and the finding in an adjudication proceeding under Section 51 is not binding in the proceeding for prosecution under Section 56
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo, on these facts. The Supreme Court divided. Sathasivam J would have dismissed the appeal, holding that adjudication and prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act are independent and that the adjudicating officer's exoneration is at most a point for the accused to urge before the Magistrate. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, with Bedi J, declined to subscribe to that view, so the majority allowed the appeal and the prosecution could not continue. The majority accepted that the two proceedings are independent and can run together, but treated it as a different question once the adjudication has ended in exoneration on the same allegation. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ, with a separate judgment by P. Sathasivam, J; majority judgment by Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J) and bears on section 276C of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (2011) 333 ITR 58; (2011) 3 SCC 581; 2011 Cri LJ 1747; 2011 AIR SCW 1479; (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721. This is the case tax practitioners cite when a prosecution under section 276C survives the collapse of the penalty or assessment proceeding on the same facts. It is the Supreme Court's fullest treatment of the relationship between a departmental adjudication and a criminal trial on the same allegation, and it works through the earlier authorities - L.R. Melwani, Standard Chartered Bank, K.G. Premshanker, Iqbal Singh Marwah and K.C. Builders v CIT - which had pulled in different directions. It matters because the department's standard answer is that the two proceedings are independent, and this judgment accepts that proposition in terms and then holds it does not decide the case where the adjudication has already ended in the assessee's favour on the merits. If it applies to you, the first step is this: If the penalty or adjudication proceeding has been dropped on the merits, move for discharge in the prosecution at once and put the adjudication order on record; do not wait for the trial.
Enforcement Directorate officers searched premises occupied by the appellant in May 1992, arrested him under section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and recorded his statement on several dates. The Directorate took the view that he had paid Rs.24,75,000 to one Piyush Kumar Barodia in March and April 1992 as consideration for the receipt of US$ 75,000 abroad at Rs.33 to the dollar against an official rate of about Rs.30, contravening sections 8(2) and 9(1)(f)(i) read with section 64(2). A show cause notice was issued in May 1993 and adjudication proceedings under section 51 followed. The Special Director dropped the proceedings, holding that it had not been proved that the sum was actually paid, that the only material against the appellant was his name and telephone number in documents seized from Barodia together with a retracted statement, and that the benefit of doubt had to be given. The Directorate did not challenge that order and it became final. On the same allegation the Directorate prosecuted the appellant under section 56 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, who refused to drop the proceedings; the Calcutta High Court rejected his revision. The matter was decided on 2011-02-18 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ, with a separate judgment by P. Sathasivam, J; majority judgment by Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The Court was divided. Sathasivam J, in the judgment reproduced in full in the harvested text, held that on the scheme of the Act the adjudication and the prosecution are distinct and separate, that the absence of a proviso such as section 23D of the 1947 Act shows the legislature intended them to be independent, that no finding in adjudication binds the criminal court, and that the Special Director's order of 18 November 1996 was at most a point for the appellant to place before the Magistrate; he dismissed the appeal. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, writing for himself and Bedi J, opened by saying that they were unable to subscribe to that view. The majority agreed that proceedings under sections 51 and 56 are independent, that a finding in adjudication does not bind the criminal court and that a prosecution can be launched before the adjudication concludes, but framed the question before them as the different one of what follows when the adjudication has culminated first in exoneration. The majority being two of the three judges, the appeal succeeded.
The majority set out the statutory scheme: section 50 fixes the penalty, section 51 requires the adjudicating officer to be satisfied after inquiry that a contravention has been committed, and section 56 opens with the words without prejudice to any award of penalty, so that prosecution is not conditional on adjudication. It accepted, following Standard Chartered Bank v Directorate of Enforcement, that nothing in the Act makes a finding in adjudication binding on the criminal court and that the two can go hand in hand. It then isolated the question actually before it: where the penalty proceeding and the prosecution were launched together but the penalty proceeding ended earlier by exonerating the person, can the prosecution continue on the same allegation. The Additional Solicitor General's answer, that the adjudication finding operates neither as estoppel nor as res judicata and that the Constitution Bench in Assistant Collector of Customs v L.R. Melwani was against the appellant, was rejected: the majority said the decision relied on had no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case, pointing out that Melwani was about issue estoppel and autrefois acquit under Article 20(2) and section 403 of the old Code, which required a verdict of acquittal in a previous lawful trial before a competent court. The paragraphs in which the majority developed its own test and made its order are not in the harvested text. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the proceedings under Section 51 and 56 of the Act are independent of each other and the finding in an adjudication proceeding under Section 51 is not binding in the proceeding for prosecution under Section 56"
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2011-02-18 and is reported as (2011) 333 ITR 58; (2011) 3 SCC 581; 2011 Cri LJ 1747; 2011 AIR SCW 1479; (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 276C, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Court was divided. Sathasivam J, in the judgment reproduced in full in the harvested text, held that on the scheme of the Act the adjudication and the prosecution are distinct and separate, that the absence of a proviso such as section 23D of the 1947 Act shows the legislature intended them to be independent, that no finding in adjudication binds the criminal court, and that the Special Director's order of 18 November 1996 was at most a point for the appellant to place before the Magistrate; he dismissed the appeal. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, writing for himself and Bedi J, opened by saying that they were unable to subscribe to that view. The majority agreed that proceedings under sections 51 and 56 are independent, that a finding in adjudication does not bind the criminal court and that a prosecution can be launched before the adjudication concludes, but framed the question before them as the different one of what follows when the adjudication has culminated first in exoneration. The majority being two of the three judges, the appeal succeeded. It arises in Prosecution and Penalty matters, on section 276C of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ, with a separate judgment by P. Sathasivam, J; majority judgment by Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Check carefully why the adjudication ended in your favour - a dropping on limitation or another technical ground is a much weaker foundation than a finding that the charge was not made out on the evidence. Expect the department to rely on Standard Chartered Bank for the proposition that the two proceedings are independent; that proposition is accepted here and is not the answer to a completed exoneration. Read the majority's numbered propositions in the reported judgment before relying on this case - they set the conditions, and they are not in the text harvested here.
Still good law. A citator search on the judgment returns 482 later decisions citing it, and they settle the question the entry left open: later courts treat the majority propositions as binding and apply them. The Karnataka High Court adopted its reasoning in Kotresh H v State of Karnataka (6 October 2023) and applied it in Aravinda H.S. (1 June 2023), Hampanna v State of Karnataka (18 May 2023) and Ajay Hilori (28 July 2023); the Orissa High Court adopted the same reasoning in Dr Minaketan Pani v State of Orissa (20 May 2022); and the Allahabad High Court in Jai Ram Lal Verma v State of U.P. (5 December 2022) records the Supreme Court relying on it to set aside a judgment. The Karnataka High Court on 30 January 2026 treats it as a three-Judge Bench decision. The propositions applied are that exoneration in adjudication or departmental proceedings does not ipso facto end a criminal case, but that where the allegations are identical and the exoneration is on the merits, the trial is an abuse of the process of the court. Nothing overruling or doubting it was found. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The harvested text is clipped: about 45,000 characters from the middle are not reproduced. What is missing is paragraphs 14 onwards of the majority judgment, which contain the majority's discussion, its numbered propositions - the passage the case is actually cited for, including the distinction between exoneration on the merits and exoneration on a technical ground - and its operative order, together with the opening paragraphs of Sathasivam J's judgment. The statement that the appeal succeeded is an inference from the majority's opening sentence that it could not subscribe to Sathasivam J's view, his view being that the appeal fails, and from the majority being two of the three judges; the operative words were not read. Second, this is a Foreign Exchange Regulation Act case, not an income tax case. It turns on sections 50, 51 and 56 of that Act, not on sections 276C, 277 or 279 of the Income-tax Act which the batch line lists; section 276C is retained in the sections field only because the case is used in income tax prosecutions and because K.C. Builders v CIT, a section 276C decision, is discussed in the passages quoted. Anyone relying on this entry should read the reported judgment in full. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Court was divided. Sathasivam J, in the judgment reproduced in full in the harvested text, held that on the scheme of the Act the adjudication and the prosecution are distinct and separate, that the absence of a proviso such as section 23D of the 1947 Act shows the legislature intended them to be independent, that no finding in adjudication binds the criminal court, and that the Special Director's order of 18 November 1996 was at most a point for the appellant to place before the Magistrate; he dismissed the appeal. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, writing for himself and Bedi J, opened by saying that they were unable to subscribe to that view. The majority agreed that proceedings under sections 51 and 56 are independent, that a finding in adjudication does not bind the criminal court and that a prosecution can be launched before the adjudication concludes, but framed the question before them as the different one of what follows when the adjudication has culminated first in exoneration. The majority being two of the three judges, the appeal succeeded.
TaxSphere, “Radheshyam Kejriwal v State of West Bengal”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/radheshyam-kejriwal-v-state-of-west-bengal/ (validity last checked 2026-08-29)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The Tribunal cancelled my concealment penalty. Can the 276C prosecution still continue?
The complaint under s.276C and s.277 was filed while my reassessment is still running. Is it premature?
The Tribunal cancelled my concealment penalty, but the prosecution under section 276C is still running. Does the penalty finding help me in the criminal court?
Does the department have to prove you meant to conceal?
