9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceiling, by which the offence can be construed to be a bailable or non bailable offence. Procedure - Section 19 very categorically states that every person arrested under this Act shall be forwarded without any delay to the nearest Central Excise Officer empowered to send persons so arrested to a Magistrate. In absence of any authorization to act in terms of Sections 19 and 21 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the remand of the petitioner pursuant to the prayer made by an officer not authorized to forward the petitioner for remand, the consequent order of remand dated 21.12.2015 automatically gets vitiated. It has been submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remand of the petitioner is being extended from time to time without there being any such prayer made by the prosecuting agency. Be that as it may, since it has already been held that the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 is not in accordance with law and the remand being contrary to the provisions of Central Excise Act enumerated above, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.12.2015, passed by the learned Speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, has submitted that there was no occasion for the respondent no. 2 to have arrested the petitioner and to produce him before the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur for his remand as the petitioner had extended full cooperations in the enquiry/investigation made by the Central Excise Authorities. It has been submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 9A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the offences under the Act have been categorized into one, which is up to ₹ 1 crore and which is non cognizable and bailable, whereas if the evasion is above ₹ 1 crore, the same is a cognizable and non bailable offence. Learned counsel submits that final quantifications of the alleged evasion have admittedly not been done and in such circumstance before praying for remand of the petitioner in judicial custody, no final outcome with respect to the exact amount of alleged evasion was arrived at. Learned counsel further submits that even in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that quantification of the alleged evasion has been finally assessed and that being the position, the petitioner could not have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnizable offence and accordingly the prayer for remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made by the respondent no. 2. Mr. Deepak Roshan continuing with his argument has submitted that the petitioner being one of the Directors of M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited had played a major role in evasion of excise duty and he was never cooperating with the investigation made by the Central Excise Authority. Furthering his argument, learned counsel submits that prior to arrest of the petitioner, the approval of the Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit was taken, which is in consonance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Central Excise Act. It has also been submitted that Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Act have duly been followed for producing the petitioner after his arrest before the Magistrate for his remand. In such circumstance, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the order dated 21.12.2015 cannot be interfered with as the opposite parties have given justifiable reasons for remand of the petitioner to judicial custody. 8. The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer empowered to send persons so arrested to a Magistrate, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to inquire into the charge against him. (2) For this purpose the Central Excise Officer may exercise the same powers and shall be subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police-station may exercise and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)1, when investigating a cognizable case: Provided that- (a) if the Central Excise Officer is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or forward him in custody to such Magistrate; (b) if it appears to the Central Excise Officer that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall release the accused person on his executing a bond, with or without sureties as the Central Excise Officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, and shall make a full report of all the particulars of the case to his official superior . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
