2011 (9) TMI 780 - HC - Central Excise

Offence punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Application for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate - It is contended that the respondents being at large is likely to prejudice a fair investigation since he is an influential person in the hierarchy of the company who can influence witnesses - The Special PP submits that the offence which the respondent has committed attracts punishment of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and therefore is a serious economic offence affecting the revenue and therefore the learned Magistrate should have seen that the investigation in this case would be hampered by the respondents being at large - Since Sections 13 19 20 and 21 are the only sections in the Act which deal with persons arrested from the reading of these sections it appears that the first option which the officer has is to admit the accused to bail and the second option is to forward him to a Magistrate - The Department had already applied before the learned Magistrate for cancellation of bail on the ground that the respondent had not attended the office of the applicant in terms of the order on which the respondent was bailed out - Needless to mention the respondent would keep himself in good physical shape so that he does not have any occasion to again breach the order of the Magistrate - Application is rejected

Issues: Application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent allegedly involved in an offence under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The application for cancellation of bail was filed by the Deputy Director of Central Excise Intelligence, contending that the learned Magistrate misdirected himself by granting bail to the respondent, who is allegedly involved in an offence under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant argued that the respondent, an influential person in the company hierarchy, could influence witnesses and prejudice a fair investigation by being at large. The respondent, on the other hand, filed a detailed reply in the form of an affidavit.

2. The High Court heard arguments from the Special PP for the Department and the counsel for the respondent. The Special PP highlighted the seriousness of the offence committed by the respondent, which attracts a punishment of imprisonment up to seven years, affecting revenue. The Special PP emphasized that the investigation could be hampered if the respondent remains at large. The Court also referred to relevant sections of the Central Excise Act regarding arrest, disposal of arrested persons, and inquiry procedures by Central Excise Officers. The Court noted that the Act provides for admitting the accused to bail or forwarding them to a Magistrate, and in this case, since the offence attracts imprisonment up to seven years only, there was no justification to detain the respondent pending investigation or trial unless there was evidence of abuse of liberty.

3. The Department had previously applied for the cancellation of bail on the grounds that the respondent had not complied with the order to attend the office of the applicant. The learned Magistrate had granted exemption to the respondent for medical treatment and had allowed the respondent to appear before the Central Excise Authorities. The Court emphasized the importance of avoiding loss of judicial time due to claims and counter-claims. The Court directed the respondent to obtain an acknowledgment from the Central Excise Officer when appearing before them and to maintain good physical shape to comply with the Magistrate's orders. Ultimately, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Magistrate's order granting bail to the respondent and rejected the application for cancellation of bail.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment regarding the application for cancellation of bail in a case involving an offence under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

← Previous Next →