1983 (4) TMI 132 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved
1. Competence of appeals for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
2. Whether officers under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act are empowered to conduct "investigation" within the meaning of Section 377(2) CrPC.
3. Adequacy of sentences imposed in the respective criminal appeals.

Detailed Analysis

1. Competence of Appeals for Enhancement of Sentence under Section 377(2) CrPC
The primary issue is whether the appeals for enhancement of sentences, presented by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, are maintainable under Section 377(2) CrPC. Section 377(2) empowers the Central Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy if the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or by any other agency empowered to make investigation under any Central Act other than the CrPC.

2. Whether Officers under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act are Empowered to Conduct "Investigation"
The court examined whether the officials under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act are empowered to conduct investigations as defined in Section 2(h) CrPC, which includes all proceedings for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person authorized by a Magistrate. The court noted that neither the Customs Act nor the Gold (Control) Act contains provisions similar to Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which expressly empowers the agency to conduct investigations.

Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act Analysis:
- The Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act provide various powers to officers such as search, seizure, and arrest, but these powers are incidental to their primary function of enforcing the provisions of these Acts.
- The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including *State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram* and *State of Uttar Pradesh v. Durga Prasad*, which held that officers under these Acts do not possess the same attributes as police officers conducting investigations under the CrPC.
- The court concluded that the machinery created under these Acts is not for the purpose of investigating crimes but for enforcing the provisions of the Acts and preventing duty evasion or unauthorized gold transactions.

3. Adequacy of Sentences Imposed in the Respective Criminal Appeals
The appeals challenged the adequacy of sentences imposed by the trial courts. The court reviewed the sentences in the context of the legal framework and the powers of the officers under the respective Acts.

Case Summaries:
- Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1976: The trial court convicted the accused under the Customs Act and the Defence of India Gold (Control) Rules, 1962, imposing fines and imprisonment. The appeal questioned whether the sentence was adequate.
- Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 1976: The Assistant Collector of Central Excise appealed against the sentence imposed for violations of the Gold (Control) Act, arguing it was inadequate.
- Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1977: The appeal challenged the sentence for offences under the Gold (Control) Act, asserting it was insufficient.
- Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1977: The appeal contested the reduction of the sentence by the Sessions Judge, arguing the sentence was inadequate.

Court's Conclusion:
The court held that the appeals for enhancement of sentences were not competent under Section 377(2) CrPC because the officers under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act are not empowered to conduct investigations as defined in the CrPC. The court dismissed all the appeals on this ground.

Additional Direction:
Regarding the return of the gold jewelry (M.O. 5 series) seized from the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1976, the court directed the respondent to move the appropriate authorities for the return of the property, as the matter was not the subject of the appeal.

Summary
The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeals for enhancement of sentences under Section 377(2) CrPC, holding that the officers under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act are not empowered to conduct investigations within the meaning of the CrPC. The court concluded that the machinery under these Acts is for enforcing their provisions and preventing duty evasion, not for investigating crimes. The appeals were deemed not competent, and the court provided direction for the return of seized property to the appropriate authorities.

← Previous Next →