Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 356 - HC - Central ExciseSeeking cancellation of bail - Offence punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Evasion of duty - Serious economic offence - Held that - no infirmity found in the observations made by the Sessions Judge in applying the principle of prospectivity in the matter of interpretation of an amendment. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the offence qua the respondent is non-bailable and cognizable, there is no bar for a Court to grant concession of bail in non-cognizable offence, as per the provisions of sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. There does not appear to be any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Sessions Court. There does not appear to be any requirement to adjudicate on the question raised by the petitioner that offence under Section 9 of the Act should be held non-bailable and cognizable with retrospective effect with an objective to maintain stringency of grant of bails in offences under the Excise Act. The power to exercise discretion in non- bailable offences is guided by the provisions of law and a Judicial Officer is required to objectively consider the circumstances to consider whether the discretion of bail is to be exercised in non-bailable offence in a particular case or not. - Decided against the Revenue
Issues:
Petition under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. to set aside bail granted to respondent under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Sessions Court, Rohtak. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner sought cancellation of bail on grounds of pending investigation, seriousness of the economic offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and incorrect application of judgment ratio by the Sessions Court. The petitioner argued that the amendment making the offence non-bailable was substantive, not procedural, and thus bail should not have been granted. The petitioner contended that the observations made by the Sessions Court might impact other cases where the petitioner is a complainant. The petitioner emphasized that the amendment should be construed retrospectively, affecting the respondent's bail eligibility despite the offence predating the amendment. The Sessions Judge, in response, highlighted the impact of the amendment on the accused's right to bail, emphasizing the distinction between substantive and procedural law. Referring to various legal precedents, the Sessions Judge concluded that the amendment affecting bail eligibility should be considered prospective, not retrospective. The absence of a saving clause or manifest intention for retrospective application led to the respondent being governed by pre-amendment provisions. Consequently, the respondent was granted bail based on the principle of prospectivity in interpreting amendments. The High Court analyzed the arguments and observations made by the Sessions Judge. It noted that even if the offence was non-bailable, the Cr.P.C. allowed for bail under specific circumstances, which the Sessions Court had considered. The High Court emphasized the need for judicial officers to objectively assess each case for bail in non-bailable offences. Ultimately, the High Court found no grounds to cancel the bail granted to the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
|