2019 (4) TMI 531 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of natural justice - Validity of trial u/s 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - absence of charge - the charge laid against the petitioner was only under Section 9 without indicating under which limb of that section he has to face trial - seizure of labelled and unlabelled beedies - seizure of beedi tobacco - Held that - There was amendments in the year 1992. Thus, on a careful perusal, it can be seen that, a re-numbering was done under Section 9(1) and all the offences impugned therein are seen made punishable under Section 9(1)(i) & (ii). There may be an omission of sub-section (i), which was introduced by the Act 36 of 1973. That omission cannot be treated as material in the light of Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, by going through the charge, it can be seen that the details of the allegation for which, he is facing the trial is made clear. When the charge is clear regarding the allegations, quoting of the offences or omission of quoting the sub-section will not vitiate the trial. The Court below awarded a minimum sentence of six months and to pay a fine of ₹ 20,000/- with default simple imprisonment for three months - Considering the fact that the age of the revision petitioner who is accused No. 1. was given as 53 in the judgment and the case is that of the year 1990 and now we are in 2018 and for the last 28 years the case is therein and also considering the fact that the aged revision petitioner is suffering from various ailments, this can be treated as a special circumstance to give reduction in the minimum sentence awarded by the Court below as provided in the Act. The sentence imposed is modified and reduced as simple imprisonment for two months. As there is reduction in the substantial sentence, the fine amount is increased to ₹ 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days more - Revision allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper framing of charge under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Alleged irregularities in the trial proceedings.
3. Applicability of Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Sentencing considerations and modification.

Issue 1: Proper Framing of Charge under Section 9:
The accused challenged the conviction under Section 9(1) and (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, arguing that the charge against him was vague and did not specify the exact provisions under which he was being prosecuted. The defense contended that the absence of a clear charge violated the principles of natural justice and prejudiced the accused. The Court examined the charge sheet and found that while there was a discrepancy in the numbering of the sections due to amendments, the allegations against the accused were adequately detailed in the charge. The Court held that the clarity of the allegations was more crucial than the specific sub-section mentioned, and the trial was not vitiated by the omission of the sub-section number.

Issue 2: Alleged Irregularities in Trial Proceedings:
The defense raised concerns about irregularities in the trial proceedings, emphasizing the importance of proper framing of charges as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defense argued that the absence of a specific charge under Section 9(1) and (2) compromised the fairness of the trial. However, the Court noted that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the seizure of unaccounted beedies and tobacco, was properly evaluated by the lower courts. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence and upheld the conviction based on the merits of the case.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The prosecution cited Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with errors, omissions, or irregularities in charges. The prosecution argued that the case fell under Section 464(1) rather than Section 464(2), indicating that the charge against the accused was not fatally flawed. The Court considered the provisions of Section 464 and concluded that the charge, despite minor discrepancies, sufficiently notified the accused of the allegations he was facing, thereby complying with the procedural requirements.

Issue 4: Sentencing Considerations and Modification:
The Court, while acknowledging the age and health condition of the accused, decided to modify the sentence imposed by the lower courts. Considering the prolonged duration of the case and the health issues of the accused, the Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from six months to two months. However, the fine amount was increased to &8377; 1,00,000/-, with an additional 15 days of simple imprisonment in case of default. The Court viewed the circumstances as special and opted for a more lenient approach in sentencing, balancing the need for justice with compassion towards the accused's situation.

In conclusion, the Court partially allowed the revision petition, modifying the sentence while affirming the conviction based on the evidence presented during the trial.