1986 (7) TMI 123 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of process issued against the petitioner.
2. Prima facie case determination.
3. Allegations of evasion of excise duty and conspiracy.
4. Role and responsibility of the petitioner as a director.
5. Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution.
6. Legal precedents and their applicability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Process Issued Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner, accused No. 17, sought quashing of the process issued by the learned Magistrate in a complaint alleging evasion of excise duty and conspiracy. The petitioner argued that he was appointed as a director only on 19-11-1985 and did not participate in any proceedings leading to the conspiracy. The Court noted that the complaint did not mention the petitioner's joining date, but this fact was not disputed in the counter-affidavit.

2. Prima Facie Case Determination:
The learned Magistrate issued the process based on the complaint allegations without recording any verification statement of the complainant, a public servant. The Court examined whether there was a prima facie case against the petitioner. The allegations in the complaint indicated that the petitioner was not involved in the conspiracy as he joined the company after the alleged acts took place.

3. Allegations of Evasion of Excise Duty and Conspiracy:
The complaint alleged that accused No. 1 Company and its directors, including the petitioner, conspired to evade excise duty by under-declaring prices and miscalculating assessable value. The prosecution claimed that incriminating documents were seized during searches conducted on 9-12-1985. However, the Court found that the petitioner was not a director during the period of the alleged conspiracy (1981-1984) and did not participate in any relevant board meetings.

4. Role and Responsibility of the Petitioner as a Director:
The petitioner contended that he was appointed as an additional director on 19-11-1985 and did not participate in any board proceedings before the raid on 9-12-1985. The Court noted that the complaint made a bald statement that all directors were responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offence. This was insufficient to implicate the petitioner, who had no involvement during the conspiracy period.

5. Inherent Powers of the High Court Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution:
The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings. It emphasized that these powers should be used to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The Court found that allowing the prosecution to continue against the petitioner would be an abuse of process and gross injustice.

6. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability:
The Court referred to several legal precedents, including:
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Ram Kishan Rohatgi: Proceedings can be quashed if no offence is made out on the face of the complaint.
- R.P. Kapur v State of Punjab: Inherent powers can be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.
- State of Karnataka v L. Munnaswamy: The High Court can quash proceedings if allowing them to continue would be an abuse of process.

The Court concluded that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of these precedents, as the allegations did not constitute an offence against him, and there was no evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the process issued against the petitioner, original accused No. 17. It held that continuing the prosecution would be an exercise in futility and an abuse of process, causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. The petition succeeded, and the rule was made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition.