9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against acquittal under section 9(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Contentions on weightage particulars, penalty collection, and security; Filing of complaint beyond the period of limitation; Adjudication proceedings under Rule 223(A) of the Act.
Analysis: 1. The case involved an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused under section 9(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The accused, a warehouse licensee dealing in manufactured tobacco, was found to have a significant shortage in stock during a special stock taking conducted by Central Excise officers. The shortage was deemed excessive, leading to suspicions of duty evasion and the subsequent filing of a complaint against the accused. 2. The defence put forth by the accused included disputing the weightage particulars and percentage of shortage, questioning the premature filing of a criminal complaint before adjudication proceedings, and highlighting the security furnished for excise duty payment as a remedy for any defaults. The learned Magistrate accepted these contentions and acquitted the accused, also noting the complaint's filing beyond the period of limitation. 3. The High Court observed that while some findings of the Magistrate were questionable, the acquittal could not be overturned. The Court disagreed with the Magistrate's reasoning on the prosecution case solely relying on the testimony of a Central Excise officer. However, the Court noted that the complaint was filed one day beyond the six-month limitation period from the accrual of the cause of action, rendering it unsustainable. 4. Additionally, the Court highlighted the significance of adjudication proceedings under Rule 223(A) of the Act, emphasizing that any actions taken under this rule would involve an evaluation of the loss by the warehouse keeper. As the adjudication proceedings were pending at the time of the complaint filing, the Court deemed the situation unclear, making it challenging for the criminal court to attribute the stock shortage solely to clandestine removal. 5. The Court acknowledged the dilemma faced by the prosecution due to the limitation period and the ongoing adjudication proceedings. While recognizing the impracticality of expecting the complaint to be filed post the completion of departmental proceedings, the Court upheld the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to legal timelines and procedures.
|
