2018 (7) TMI 1784 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of Private Complaint and prosecution proceedings - Clandestine removal of goods - Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - approval of Principal Collector/Principal Commissioner for launching any prosecution - it was alleged that the complaint was lodged without any authorization or any authority, the same is liable to be quashed. Held that - A perusal of the entire complaint shows that the complaint was launched with approval / sanction and the said sanction/approval order given by the Chief Commissioner has been filed along with the complaint as document No.11. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the prosecution has been launched without any approval/sanction from the concerned authority cannot be accepted - Whether the said sanction/approval is in accordance with Central Excise Act and Rules is a matter for trial, which cannot be decided in the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Jurisdiction - contention of petitioners is that the complaint has been filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, when the factory of the first respondent is located at Gummidipoondi - Held that - This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the respondent/complainant had visited the registered office of the first accused company situated at New No.1, Old No.62, First Link Street, Raghavan Colony, Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai-83 and conducted a search on 24.02.1999 and also recovered certain incriminating documents, leading to issue of summons to the accused and also to launch a criminal complaint against them. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the court, Authorization for prosecution, Compliance with Central Excise Act and Rules

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioners, accused in a case before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, challenged the jurisdiction of the court due to the location of the factory being in Gummidipoondi. The court rejected this contention, emphasizing that incriminating documents were found at the registered office in Chennai, giving the court jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Authorization for Prosecution:
The petitioners argued that the prosecution was unauthorized as it lacked prior approval from the competent authority, citing the requirement under the Central Excise Act. However, the respondent contended that administrative approval was obtained from the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise for prosecuting the accused. The court noted that the sanction order was filed with the complaint, indicating approval for prosecution. It held that the validity of the sanction would be determined during trial and could not be decided in the current petition.

Compliance with Central Excise Act and Rules:
The petitioners contended that the private complaint against them should be quashed as it was lodged without proper authorization, referring to guidelines set by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. They argued that without prior approval, the proceedings should be terminated. However, the respondent argued that the prosecution was duly authorized, and the court found that the sanction was in accordance with the Act and Rules. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the prosecution and rejecting the plea to quash the proceedings.