1963 (4) TMI 1 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal of two respondents convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Allegations of theft, assault, and obstruction of a Central Excise Inspector during a visit to a godown.
3. Dispute regarding the legality of the inspection conducted by the Inspector under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Evaluation of evidence presented by prosecution witnesses against the defense's claim of false implication.
5. Justification of the conviction for theft of a Parker fountain-pen under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The High Court of Patna heard an appeal by the State of Bihar against the acquittal of two respondents previously convicted under sections 379, 332, 342, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents were alleged to have obstructed a Central Excise Inspector during a visit to a godown, leading to theft, assault, and refusal to cooperate with the inspection.

2. The prosecution's case, supported by the Inspector and witnesses, detailed the events at the godown where the respondents, along with others, obstructed the Inspector's attempt to verify the premises. The defense claimed false implication due to animosity towards Central Excise authorities, which was not substantiated. The trial court and Additional Sessions Judge evaluated this conflicting evidence.

3. The crucial issue revolved around the legality of the inspection conducted by the Inspector under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge was based on the alleged illegality of the search, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the Inspector's actions were within his jurisdiction and did not constitute a search but a routine inspection, thus not requiring compliance with specific search provisions.

4. The High Court found that the acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge was erroneous. The conviction for theft of a Parker fountain-pen under Section 379 was upheld, emphasizing that the assault on the Inspector was unjustifiable regardless of the legality of the inspection. The court concluded that the prosecution's evidence was credible, and the respondents were wrongly acquitted.

5. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, reinstated the trial court's decision, and allowed the appeal by the State of Bihar. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between routine inspections and searches, emphasizing the Inspector's authority to conduct such inspections within his duties without the need for specific search procedures.