The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition filed by two former officers of the Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ), including Central Excise Inspector C.S. Srinivas and H.C. Pandya seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with a 2002 duty-free import fraud case.
The single-judge bench of Justice J.C. Doshi ruled that the petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution after being converted from a criminal revision application, was not maintainable in law.
The bench observed that the petitioners had attempted to “circumvent the statutory bar” under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by invoking writ jurisdiction, which is impermissible.
The case stems from the issuance of a Letter of Permission (LOP) dated January 24, 2002, by the Development Commissioner, KASEZ, to one M/s Shiv Metal Corporation for duty-free import of metal scrap meant for export-oriented manufacturing.
Investigations later revealed that the unit allegedly diverted the imported materials into the domestic market and fabricated export documents, causing revenue loss to the government.
The petitioners, C.S. Srinivas and H.C. Pandya — both serving as Officers on Special Duty (OSD) at the time — were accused of submitting a joint inspection report on July 17, 2002, that allegedly misrepresented the operational status of the unit. Though not named in the original 2004 FIR, they were subsequently implicated in the CBI charge sheet under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Senior Advocate Jayant Panchal, assisted by Advocate Y.V. Vaghela on behalf of the officers argued that the officers merely complied with official instructions to conduct the site inspection and had no criminal intent.
Mr. Pancha submitted that the departmental inquiry initiated in 2011 on identical allegations had completely exonerated one of the petitioners, whose clean record was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, in 2015. The Tribunal had held that the charges “stood abated” and directed restoration of all benefits, including promotion and pension.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings such as Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP, CBI (2020) 9 SCC 636 and Videocon Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the petitioners argued that once departmental exoneration is granted on identical facts, criminal prosecution cannot continue.
They also contended that the continued proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, particularly since one petitioner had retired and the other had resigned with a No-Objection Certificate from the department.
Appearing for the CBI, Advocate R.C. Kodekar opposed the plea, stating that the petition was an indirect attempt to bypass the legal bar on revisions against interlocutory orders under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He argued that once the Special Judge had rejected the discharge applications, the petitioners could not re-approach the High Court by “artfully disguising” their challenge as a writ petition.
Kodekar emphasized that departmental clearance or resignation does not absolve public officials of criminal liabilityunder the penal law and that sufficient material had been found during investigation to justify prosecution.
Justice Doshi held that the conversion of the criminal revision application into a writ petition was a deliberate attempt to evade the statutory restrictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Citing precedents including Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 8 SCC 607 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012) 9 SCC 685, the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent express legislative bars or to stay criminal trials under the anti-corruption law.
The Court also referred to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Neeta Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No. 13578/2024), holding that once a charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken by a competent court, the matter assumes a judicial character that cannot be quashed through writ proceedings.
Justice Doshi noted that the plea of departmental exoneration was raised for the first time in an additional affidavit and had not been part of the original pleadings or the discharge application before the CBI Court. “A ground not raised in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be urged across the bar,” the Court stated.
Concluding that the petition was “fundamentally misdirected and bereft of any sustainable cause”, the Court dismissed it in entirety and vacated all interim reliefs.
“The petition, being not maintainable in the eyes of law, stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted heretofore, stands vacated forthwith,” the judgment declared.
Case Details
Case Title: Chirala Sesha Srinivas, Inspector Of Cetral Excise, & Anr. Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.
Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 5364 of 2014
Date: 14/10/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: HARSHA R JADAV
Counsel For Respondent: RC KODEKAR
, including Central Excise Inspector C.S. Srinivas and H.C. Pandya seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with a 2002 duty-free import fraud case.){kind=link}