2011 (3) TMI 1827 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the legality of the order taking cognizance of various offences under IPC against the Petitioner, the jurisdiction of the court, the actions of the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, and the application of relevant legal provisions.

Cognizance of Offences under IPC:
The Petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance of offences under Section 323, 348, 365, 368, 506 IPC read with Section 34 and 120-B IPC. The facts revealed evasion of excise duty by a company, leading to a search by DGCEI officers. Despite summons, the Directors did not appear, and later alleged illegal detention and torture. The ACMM found the offences made out and directed summoning of the accused. The Petitioner argued lack of jurisdiction and necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C.

Jurisdiction and Legal Provisions:
The Petitioner contended that the alleged acts did not fall within the official duties of the officers and were beyond their powers. The complaint was filed before an ACMM trying custom cases at Delhi, raising questions of jurisdiction. The ACMM's actions were questioned in light of Section 22 of the Central Excise Act, which provides penalties for officers exceeding their powers. The judgment highlighted the need for proper application of legal provisions and jurisdiction.

Scope of Duties and Protection under Central Excise Act:
The judgment analyzed the actions of the officers in taking the Respondent from a hotel for inquiry and subsequent arrest. It was argued that the officers were within the scope of their duties and protected under Section 40 of the Central Excise Act. The ACMM's decision to entertain complaints under IPC was deemed illegal, emphasizing the need for adherence to the Central Excise Act and the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, setting aside the order dated 1st December 2009. The judgment underscored the importance of proper jurisdiction, adherence to legal provisions, and the distinction between actions falling within official duties and those warranting criminal charges.