9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel has placed reliance on the decision reported in [1990 (10) TMI 362 - SUPREME COURT] in the case of Bhoolchand And Another v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Another. The principle aforesaid relies to non-production of the document and not in respect of the photocopy of the document. Therefore, the principle is not applicable - This is an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. The Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with such orders. Even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the trial Court cannot be disturbed. Perusal of the material placed on record in the context of the principle referred to supra, I am of the opinion that the appellant has not made out any grounds to warrant interference in the acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd got marked the documents EXs. P1 to P19 and on closure of the evidence the statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, acquitted the respondents of the said charges. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the Central Excise Department through its Deputy Commissioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Company is not a necessary party to the proceedings for the aforesaid offences and therefore he contends that the acquittal order granted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice of the respondents and after auditing the records had prepared the report Ex. P14, but the Author of the document is not examined to prove Ex. P14, therefore, the trial Court did not rely upon the report Ex. P14 which appears to be just and proper. Apart from Ex. P14, there are photocopy of invoices which have been made available on record at Exs. P5, P7, P9 and P11 to prove the sale and the manufacture of Shoe Adhesive Gum by respondents to PWs. 4 and 5. Rather it is relevant to note that the original invoices have not been produced. At least at the time of enquiry the authorities of the appellant could have collected the invoices to prove the sale of the aforesaid goods either to PWs. 4 and 5 or to any other person. But no such effor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the audit report was accepted in the enquiry itself is in dispute. Apart from that there is no material placed on record to establish that the audit report was produced in enquiry or that it was base for awarding fine. That part of the proceedings of recovery of fine is altogether different from the proceedings for conviction of the accused under the provisions aforesaid. 9. In the absence of proof of contents of Ex. P14, the mere fact that the order of fine was confirmed by this Court, will not be a good ground for conviction of the respondents for the aforesaid charges. Viewed from any angle, the judgment and order of acquittal cannot be interfered with. 10. Though it is contended that the Company itself is not a necessary par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
