1979 (12) TMI 73 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Crl. P.C.).
3. Powers and duties of Customs Officers under the Customs Act.
4. Comparison between the investigative powers of Customs Officers and Police Officers.
5. Validity of the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence:

The primary issue in this case was whether the Assistant Collector of Central Excise had the authority to file an appeal for the enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused. The court concluded that the Assistant Collector did not have the locus standi to file such an appeal. The judgment stated, "The appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore division, is not competent, as he has no locus standi to file an appeal."

2. Interpretation and application of Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Crl. P.C.):

The court examined Section 377 of the Crl. P.C., which outlines the procedure for appealing against inadequate sentences. According to Section 377(1), "the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any court other than a High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy." The court noted that prior to the amendment by Central Act 45 of 1978, Section 377(2) allowed the Central Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to present such an appeal if the offence was investigated by a central agency. The court found that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise did not fall under this provision and thus could not file the appeal.

3. Powers and duties of Customs Officers under the Customs Act:

The court elaborated on the powers conferred upon Customs Officers by various sections of the Customs Act, including Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, and 110. These sections empower Customs Officers to arrest, search, seize goods, and summon individuals for evidence. However, the court emphasized that these powers were not equivalent to the investigative powers of police officers under the Crl. P.C. The court stated, "Customs Officers have not the powers of a police officer for the purpose of investigation within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code."

4. Comparison between the investigative powers of Customs Officers and Police Officers:

The judgment drew a distinction between the roles and powers of Customs Officers and Police Officers. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in the State of Punjab v. Bukratma, the court noted that while police officers are primarily responsible for the prevention and detection of crime, Customs Officers are focused on preventing smuggling and ensuring the collection of customs duties. The court observed, "The powers of customs officers are really not for such purpose [crime prevention]. Their powers are for the purpose of checking the smuggling of goods and the due realisation of customs duties."

5. Validity of the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise:

Given the court's interpretation of Section 377 of the Crl. P.C. and the distinct roles of Customs Officers, the court concluded that the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was not valid. The court stated, "Even if the Assistant Collector of Customs can be deemed to be an agency empowered to make investigation, into an offence under the Customs Act, this appeal by him is not maintainable."

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for enhancement of the sentence, citing lack of competence and locus standi. The judgment reaffirmed the distinct roles and powers of Customs Officers and Police Officers and clarified the application of Section 377 of the Crl. P.C. The court also refused leave for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, stating, "The judgment is based on a plain reading of sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Sec. 377 of Cr.P.C. and on the irrefutable fact that the appeal has been filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, and therefore, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court."

← Previous Next →