1976 (12) TMI 182 - SC - Central Excise

Whether cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 34 could not be taken by a Magistrate except on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an excise officer ? Held that - The High Court as well as the Court of Sessions, were therefore, clearly in error in affirming the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate and it must be held that the charge-sheet was validly filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate by the police and the Judicial Magistrate was entitled to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of such charge-sheet. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the orders made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sessions Judge and the High Court and remand the case to the Judicial Magistrate with a direction to him to deal with the charge-sheet filed by .the police in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in this judgment.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 60 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 regarding cognizance of offenses.
2. Validity of the charge-sheet filed by the police against the respondent.
3. Jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offense under Section 34.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment involved a crucial interpretation of Section 60 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965, specifically focusing on the amendments made to clause (b) of Section 60. The initial provision required cognizance of offenses under certain sections to be taken based on the complaint or report of an Excise or Police Officer. However, an amendment by Mysore Ordinance No. 4 of 1970 omitted the reference to the police in clause (b) of Section 60, restricting cognizance to excise officers only.

2. The case revolved around the validity of a charge-sheet filed by the police against the respondent under Section 34 of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate initially refused to take cognizance of the offense based on the charge-sheet filed by the police, citing the absence of an excise officer's involvement. This decision was upheld by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, leading to the State's appeal to the Supreme Court.

3. The Supreme Court analyzed the impact of subsequent amendments to Section 60, particularly Mysore Act 1 of 1971, which reinstated the original provision by deeming the amendment of 1970 as never made. The Court emphasized the application of legal fiction and the need to give full effect to statutory provisions. It concluded that the charge-sheet filed by the police was valid, and the Judicial Magistrate had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense under Section 34.

Additionally, the judgment highlighted a subsequent development where a fresh charge-sheet for the same offense was filed after the High Court's decision. Due to the respondent already serving the sentence, the Court deemed it unnecessary to remand the case to the Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the directive for remand was revoked based on the updated circumstances of the case.