1985 (5) TMI 59 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Government appeal against the acquittal of accused-respondents under Sections 395 and 353, I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The prosecution case involved the Inspector seizing goods suspected of being taken without payment of Central Excise Duty. The accused-respondents forcibly took away the goods, leading to charges under Sections 395 and 353, I.P.C.

2. The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused-respondents based on the Inspector's alleged bias against them. The Judge noted the absence of evidence from key witnesses and the lack of a seizure-list, crucial for proving lawful possession of the seized goods.

3. The Inspector's statement formed the primary evidence against the accused-respondents. However, the absence of corroborating evidence and the Inspector's failure to follow legal procedures raised doubts about the validity of the seizure.

4. The distinction between "seizure" and "detention" was crucial. The absence of a seizure-list and non-compliance with legal requirements rendered the Inspector's actions illegal, casting doubt on the lawful possession of the goods.

5. The Inspector's delay in effecting the supurdagi and failure to comply with Section 165, Cr. P.C. further weakened the prosecution's case. The failure to record grounds for search and seizure undermined the legality of the detention.

6. The absence of a seizure-list and non-compliance with legal procedures meant the accused-respondents had the right to defend their property. The Sessions Judge's finding that the accused-respondents did not use force against the Inspector was upheld.

7. The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Sessions Judge's assessment of the evidence and finding no perversity in the judgment. The legal deficiencies in the seizure process led to the acquittal of the accused-respondents under Sections 395 and 353, I.P.C.