2002 (12) TMI 94 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the complaint under Sections 9AA/13/19 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Direction to not arrest the petitioners in connection with the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Complaint:
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the complaint under Sections 9AA/13/19 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They argued that the offences under Section 9 are deemed non-cognizable, meaning they do not warrant immediate arrest without a warrant. The petitioners contended that the Central Excise Officers do not have the authority to remand individuals to custody for pending investigations, as the Act only allows for inquiries, not full-fledged investigations. The court observed that no FIR or formal complaint had been lodged against the petitioners, and the remand application did not pertain to them. Consequently, the argument for quashing the complaint was not maintainable. The court emphasized that the Central Excise Act does not override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding arrests and the filing of complaints.

2. Direction to Not Arrest the Petitioners:
The petitioners also sought a writ of mandamus to prevent their arrest, fearing imminent detention based on the actions taken against others in the case. The court noted that the power of arrest under Section 13 of the Central Excise Act is conditional and must be exercised with due process. The court highlighted that the Central Excise Officers' powers are not equivalent to those of police officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly concerning non-cognizable offences. The court referenced Article 21 of the Constitution, which safeguards personal liberty and requires any deprivation of liberty to follow the procedure established by law. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in S.M.D. Kiran Pasha v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, which supports the pre-violation protection of fundamental rights. The court concluded that the authorities must adhere to legal procedures and cannot arrest individuals without prima facie evidence and due process.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitioners' request to quash the complaint but partially allowed the petition by directing the authorities to act in accordance with the law regarding arrests. The court underscored the necessity of following due process and ensuring that any arrest under the Central Excise Act aligns with the procedural safeguards outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The writ petitions were thus partly allowed, with no orders as to costs.