1998 (8) TMI 615 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Allegations of offences under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against petitioners - Quashing of proceedings under S. 482 Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Offences under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others for offences under Ss. 4, 9 & 9A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, along with other related provisions. The complaint alleged violations related to the design and approval of cigarette packets, leading to the evasion of excise duty. The complaint implicated the company, its directors, and other officials for their roles in the alleged offences.

2. Quashing of Proceedings under S. 482 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings under S. 482 Cr.P.C., arguing that the allegations did not constitute any offence against them. They contended that continuing the proceedings would amount to harassment and miscarriage of justice. The petitioners relied on legal precedents to support their argument that mere bald statements of responsibility were insufficient to proceed against directors. However, the respondent maintained that the allegations clearly established the petitioners' involvement in the offences and emphasized that the trial court should decide the case on merits.

3. Role of Petitioners in Alleged Offences:
The respondent argued that the petitioners, as directors and officials of the company, were in charge and responsible for the commission of the alleged offences. The complaint detailed how the petitioners, through guidance, control, and supervision, contravened provisions related to excise duty payment. The respondent contended that the petitioners' active connivance and direct supervision led to the violations, making them liable for the offences alleged.

4. Interference by High Court:
The High Court deliberated on the scope and purpose of relevant provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, emphasizing the need for specific allegations against individuals to establish guilt. The Court noted that each case should be decided on its merits based on the allegations in the complaint. It refrained from delving into the probable defences of the accused and reiterated that the trial court should determine guilt during the trial.

5. Dismissal of Petition:
After considering the arguments and submissions from both sides, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no merit in the petitioners' contentions. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to present their arguments before the Magistrate at the appropriate stage. The decision to dismiss the petition was based on the finding that the allegations were sufficient to constitute offences against all accused persons, subject to establishment of guilt during trial.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the allegations of offences under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the petitioners and dismissed their petition seeking quashing of the proceedings, emphasizing that the trial court should determine guilt based on the merits of the case.