2013 (5) TMI 842 - HC - Central Excise

Every person has his limitations and certain unavoidable circumstances to deal with, due to which one cannot be expected to be present at all times, accused need only to specify the reasons and satisfy the court of his absence.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to dismissal of Complaint Case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against respondent No.2 for committing an offence punishable under Section 174 IPC.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Order Dismissing Complaint Case:
The petitioner challenged the order dismissing the Complaint Case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against respondent No.2 for an offence under Section 174 IPC. The petitioner contended that despite multiple summons sent to respondent No.2 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, the accused failed to appear or send an authorized representative. The petitioner argued that the Metropolitan Magistrate erred by delving into the defense of respondent No.2 prematurely instead of relying on the pre-summoning evidence to summon the accused under Section 174 IPC. The petitioner cited a judgment to support their stance.

2. Consideration of Documentary Evidence:
The counsel for respondent No.2 defended the Metropolitan Magistrate's order, stating it was reasoned and based on the documentary evidence presented. It was highlighted that respondent No.2 was cooperating in the adjudication proceedings post-investigation. The petitioner's claim of intentional absence by respondent No.2 was countered, emphasizing the reasoned nature of the Magistrate's decision based on the material before him.

3. Application of Section 174 IPC:
The petitioner invoked Section 174 IPC, alleging intentional non-attendance by the accused in response to summons. However, the court observed that the accused, a resident of Kanpur, had valid reasons for non-attendance, considering the significant distance involved. The court acknowledged the accused's communication with the petitioner regarding the reasons for absence. The Metropolitan Magistrate rightly noted that individuals have limitations and unavoidable circumstances, and it would be unreasonable to expect immediate compliance, especially given the geographical distance. The court emphasized the petitioner's good faith efforts and the need to grant reasonable time for compliance.

4. Decision and Dismissal of Petition:
After thorough consideration of the facts and documents, the court upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's decision, finding no illegality or perversity in the order. The court concluded that the accused's conduct was not intentional, therefore not falling under the ambit of Section 174 IPC. Consequently, the petition challenging the dismissal of the Complaint Case was dismissed.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's reasoned decision, emphasizing the importance of considering practical constraints and good faith efforts in legal proceedings, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition.