2008 (7) TMI 425 - HC - Central Excise

Seizure of goods - applicant has prayed to quash the First Information Report being Junagadh Police Station, I-C.R. No. 48/85 as well as further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1103/87 pending - Held that - Considering the fact that at the time when the seized goods were being returned to him, Shri Laxmandas had expressed suspicion that there was only one piece in the packet and had therefore, asked for open delivery, the Custodian ought to have strictly adhered the provisions of the Manual, more particularly as it was apparent that something was amiss. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that the provisions of the Manual, which provide for ample safeguards, have not been followed in the present case. In the circumstances, it would not be possible to pinpoint the exact stage at which the goods have been exchanged so as to saddle the liability on the applicant. It is also an admitted position that such negligence in following the provisions of the Manual is not on the part of the applicant. On an overall view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court looking to the nature of the offence alleged against the applicant and more particularly, in view of the fact that the first information report has been lodged on 15th February, 1985 and more than 20 years have elapsed thereafter, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting the proceedings to continue qua the applicant. Besides, in view of the above discussion, the chances of an ultimately conviction are also bleak. In the result, the application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report being Junagadh Police Station, I C.R. No. 48/85 as well as Criminal Case No. 1103/87 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junagadh, are hereby quashed.

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the First Information Report and further proceedings in a criminal case.

Analysis:
The applicant, a Superintendent of Central Excise, sought to quash criminal proceedings against him related to a raid on certain premises. The applicant was not initially named as an accused but was later arraigned as accused No. 6 in the charge sheet. The applicant claimed he was not directly involved in handling the seized goods, as procedural aspects were to be followed by others. The raid was conducted by inspectors, and the seized goods were handed over to a cashier and then to a custodian, not directly involving the applicant. The applicant argued there was no evidence connecting him to the offense, thus seeking the quashing of proceedings.

The Central Government Standing Counsel contended that the applicant had retained the seized packet for an extended period, allegedly in contravention of departmental guidelines, suggesting the possibility of tampering. Discrepancies in the handling of the seized goods were highlighted to imply the applicant's involvement. The prosecution argued that during the period the applicant retained the packet, tampering could have occurred, challenging the applicant's claim of non-involvement.

The court noted that the applicant was not initially named in the First Information Report and that the charge sheet contained general allegations of conspiracy without specific accusations against the applicant. The court analyzed witness statements and panchnamas, finding no direct link between the applicant and the offense. It was observed that the custodian did not follow prescribed procedures during the return of seized goods, raising doubts about the handling of the packet. The court emphasized the lack of evidence implicating the applicant and the procedural lapses in the case.

Considering the procedural irregularities, the court concluded that it was challenging to determine when the alleged exchange of goods occurred, absolving the applicant of liability. Given the substantial time elapsed since the incident and the weak prospects of conviction, the court deemed it futile to continue the proceedings against the applicant. Consequently, the court allowed the application, quashing the First Information Report and criminal case pending against the applicant.