2005 (12) TMI 117 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings due to delay.
2. Alleged violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Non-disclosure of any offence in the complaint.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Due to Delay:
The applicants sought quashing of criminal case No. 568 of 1982 on the grounds of delay in the trial proceedings. The complaint was filed on 1st December 1982, approximately four and a half years after the alleged offence on 8th May 1978. The trial had not significantly progressed even by 1992, leading to a total delay of over 14 years from the date of the incident. The applicants argued that this delay violated their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court noted that the prosecution had made efforts to proceed with the case, including recording witness statements and issuing warrants when necessary. The delay was attributed partly to the judicial system and partly to the defense tactics, which often involve delaying proceedings. The court emphasized that not all delays warrant quashing of proceedings, especially in cases involving economic offences that affect the nation's economy. The Supreme Court's guidelines in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka were cited, which state that each case must be evaluated based on its specific circumstances, including the nature of the offence and reasons for the delay.

2. Alleged Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
The applicants contended that the prolonged delay in the trial violated their right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. They argued that the delay caused prejudice as the necessary records to support their defense were not available due to a fire that destroyed the company's head office.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions, which outline that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental but must be balanced against the nature of the offence and the reasons for the delay. The court found that the prosecution had not been entirely inactive and had taken steps to advance the trial. The delay was partly due to the applicants' own actions and the systemic issues within the judicial process. Therefore, the court concluded that the right to a speedy trial had not been violated in this case.

3. Non-disclosure of Any Offence in the Complaint:
The applicants argued that the complaint did not disclose any specific offence against them. They claimed that merely stating their positions as Works Manager and Secretary of the company without detailing their specific roles in the alleged offence was insufficient to establish their liability under the Central Excises and Salt Act.

The court examined the complaint and found that it contained specific averments regarding the applicants' roles and responsibilities. The complaint alleged that the applicants were aware of the excise procedures and were involved in the clearance of goods without paying the requisite duty. The court held that the complaint, read in conjunction with the recorded statements, sufficiently disclosed the commission of offences by the applicants. Therefore, the court rejected the argument that the complaint did not disclose any offence.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the proceedings could not be quashed solely based on the delay, as the prosecution had made efforts to proceed with the case, and the delay was not solely attributable to the prosecution. The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 had not been violated in the facts and circumstances of this case. The complaint sufficiently disclosed the commission of offences by the applicants, and therefore, the proceedings could not be quashed on the grounds of non-disclosure of any offence. The court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously by 30th June 2006.

← Previous Next →