2016 (10) TMI 576 - HC - Central Excise

Sanction for prosecuting the petitioner - evasion of excise duty - mis-declaration of goods - PVC rigid pipes - PVC Scrap - Held that - there is no provision of law under which such sanction was mandatory. Complaint accompanied by an affidavit - the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2015 (5) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA referred - Held that - The said direction issued in the above said judgment was in the context of a complainant who had filed prior application under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3) should be indicated by an affidavit and that without going through such procedure in the first instance to invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) would lead to an abrasion. However, it is found that Section 154(1) would be attracted in respect of cognizable offences and the question of any such steps being taken under Section 154 does not arise in the present case on hand as the complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The offences alleged are non-cognizable as found from the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the mandate as found in Srivastava s case would not apply. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Validity of prosecution sanction and requirement of affidavit in the complaint.

The judgment addressed the validity of the prosecution sanction and the requirement of an affidavit in the complaint. The complaint was filed against the petitioner under various sections of the Central Excise Act, alleging misrepresentation to avoid excise duty. The Magistrate initially discharged the accused due to lack of valid sanction for prosecution. However, the Revisional Court overturned this decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The petitioner argued that no valid sanction was required for prosecution initiation, which the court found untenable. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the complaint lacked an affidavit as per a Supreme Court directive. The court clarified that the affidavit requirement under Section 154 did not apply as the complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with non-cognizable offences under the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the court rejected the petition, stating that the offenses alleged were non-cognizable, and the affidavit directive did not apply in this context.

In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court upheld the decision of the Revisional Court, emphasizing that valid prosecution sanction was necessary for initiating proceedings under the Central Excise Act. The court clarified that the absence of an affidavit in the complaint was not fatal in this case as the complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code for non-cognizable offenses. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and requirements specific to the nature of the offense alleged, ultimately leading to the rejection of the petition.