1964 (11) TMI 2 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under sections 471 and 473 read with sections 466 and 474 I.P.C.
2. Conviction under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
3. Challenge to the evidence of recovery.
4. Allegation of dishonest motives against excise officers.
5. Admissibility of confession made at the time of arrest.
6. Sentencing considerations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellant was convicted under sections 471 and 473 read with sections 466 and 474 I.P.C. and under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The appellant was caught traveling in a truck carrying contraband tobacco without the required permit. The evidence included the recovery of incriminating items from the appellant, such as forged documents and rubber stamps. The trial court found the case against the appellant established beyond a reasonable doubt based on witness statements and evidence presented.

2. The challenge to the evidence of recovery was made based on minor contradictions regarding the place of arrest and the conduct of excise officers. The appellant tried to dispute the place of arrest to undermine the prosecution's case. However, the Sessions Judge concluded that the employees of the Municipal Board may have been influenced to aid the appellant in falsifying evidence. The witnesses at the toll barriers were summoned again to clarify discrepancies, leading to a notice being issued against one witness for fabricating evidence.

3. An allegation of dishonest motives against excise officers was raised due to the seizure of a sum of money from the appellant. The argument suggested that the officers' actions were dishonest, but the court found that the money was handled appropriately and deposited as per procedure. The court emphasized the importance of safeguarding honesty and scrutinizing allegations of dishonesty against officers diligently.

4. The admissibility of the confession made by the appellant at the time of arrest was debated. The State argued for its use as evidence, citing precedents. However, the court ruled that the confession made to the Superintendent of Central Excise could not be used as evidence. The court clarified the role of Excise Officers in investigations and upheld the exclusion of the confession from evidence.

5. Regarding sentencing considerations, the appellant's age and lack of previous offenses were taken into account. The court modified the sentences, reducing the rigorous imprisonment from two years to six months and increasing the fine. The appellant was given an opportunity for reform, and the appeal was dismissed with the modified sentencing terms. Additionally, a notice was issued against a witness for fabricating evidence and giving false testimony.

This detailed analysis encompasses the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, covering the convictions, challenges to evidence, allegations against officers, admissibility of confession, and sentencing considerations.