2010 (7) TMI 432 - HC - Central Excise

Prosecution Authorization to file complaint Notification No. 38/2001-C.E. (N.T.) equated senior Intelligence Officer and Superintendent for exercise of all powers under Central Excise Act 1944 - notification provides that a Senior Intelligence Officer and Superintendent shall be treated equal for the purpose of exercising all powers under the Act plea that Superintendent working as Senior Intelligence Officer was not authorized to file in absence of gazette notification in that regard rejected

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to competency of complainant under Excise Act based on lack of authorization and powers. Petitioner's evasion of appearance before Investigating Officer and non-cooperation in investigation.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Competency of Complainant:
The petitioner sought to quash the process and discharge himself from facing charges under the Excise Act by questioning the competency of the complainant, Mr. C.B. Singh. The petitioner argued that Mr. Singh failed to demonstrate his authorization and requisite powers to file the complaint. The petitioner relied on an RTI response indicating a lack of gazette notification authorizing Mr. Singh. However, the respondent presented Notification No. 38/2001-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 26th June, 2001, which equated a Senior Intelligence Officer to a Superintendent for exercising powers under the Act. The court noted that a Senior Intelligence Officer could exercise powers equivalent to those of a Superintendent, as per the notification. Therefore, the challenge to the competency of the complainant was considered prima facie unsuccessful.

2. Petitioner's Evasion and Non-cooperation:
The judgment highlighted the petitioner's persistent evasion of appearing before the Investigating Officer, despite multiple summons and court directives. The petitioner cited illness as the reason for non-cooperation, supported by medical certificates with general ailments. However, the court noted the petitioner's lack of cooperation in the investigation and failure to appear before the court with clean hands. Considering the petitioner's conduct, the court concluded that the petitioner did not merit any relief. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, along with all pending applications.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of challenging the competency of the complainant under the Excise Act and the petitioner's evasion of appearance and non-cooperation during the investigation. The court upheld the equivalence of powers between a Senior Intelligence Officer and a Superintendent as per the relevant notification, dismissing the petitioner's challenge. Additionally, the court deemed the petitioner's conduct as lacking in cooperation and credibility, leading to the dismissal of the petition and associated applications.