2001 (10) TMI 99 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to acquittal based on lack of prior approval by Principal Collector for prosecution under Sections 9(1)(b)(i) and 9(1)(bb)(i) of Central Excises and Salt Act.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to the acquittal of the respondent due to the absence of prior approval by the Principal Collector for prosecution under Sections 9(1)(b)(i) and 9(1)(bb)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The prosecution contended that Ex. P. 10 constituted the required prior approval, while the defence argued that it did not meet the necessary criteria. The trial Judge's decision was based on the lack of prior approval, leading to the respondent's acquittal. The High Court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and documents, to determine the validity of the prior approval issue.

The High Court noted that the trial Judge did not clearly establish whether the alleged offence had occurred. The prosecution attempted to rectify the lack of prior approval by filing an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to introduce a new witness, P.W. 4, who provided information related to administrative approval. However, P.W. 3's testimony indicated uncertainty regarding the existence of the required sanction from the Collector for prosecution.

The Court scrutinized the contents of Ex. P. 10, which indicated administrative approval by the Principal Collector for prosecution against the company. P.W. 4's testimony supported the necessity of administrative approval before launching prosecution. The defense argued that Ex. P. 10 was not the actual approval but a communication from P.W. 4. The Court examined the file presented by the prosecution, which lacked a clear endorsement of prior approval by the Principal Collector. The absence of a definitive approval in the file led the Court to conclude that Ex. P. 10 did not constitute valid prior approval as required by law.

Considering the legal requirement for prior approval by the competent authority before prosecution and the absence of conclusive evidence of such approval in the presented file, the High Court upheld the trial Judge's decision to acquit the accused. The Court emphasized that the mere signing of a note file by the Principal Collector did not signify approval without explicit endorsement, highlighting the necessity for a clear demonstration of approval before prosecution. Consequently, the appeal challenging the acquittal was dismissed based on the lack of prior administrative approval for prosecution.