9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and he was found guilty under Section 9(1) and (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appeal preferred before the Sessions Court was also not successful. Hence this Criminal Revision Petition. 2. When this Criminal Revision Petition came up for hearing, the Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted before me that the appreciation of the evidence by the Court below can be only termed as perverse. It is also the submission of the Learned Counsel that, it can be seen that he was found guilty under Section 9(1) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter has to be remanded back for framing a proper charge. The Learned Senior Counsel submitted that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding framing of charge, reading of the charge, etc., are mandatory in nature. Therefore, the lack of following these aspects will vitiate the entire prosecution. Thus, there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the charge under which the petitioner has been convicted has not been read over to him. Hence, the whole proceedings will vitiate. 4. I heard the Learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted before this Court that, here is a case, where, two Courts below appreciated the evidence. The first time, the revision petitioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein 2,01,600 unlabelled beedies and 1,380 kgs of beedi tobacco kept unaccounted in the premises and one transit note book were seized from therein under a mahazar. It was also the case of the complainant that on the very same day, the premises of Fakri Beedi Company at Koppam in Palakkad District was also searched by the officers in the presence of 1st accused and witnesses. 20,400 labelled beedies and 4,200 unlabelled beedies were found in the premises as against the closing stock of 16,500 labelled beedies and 10,000 unlabelled beedies on 24-1-87. It was also the further case that behind the Fakri Beedi Company, there was a locked room, the owner K.P. Hamsa was summoned and in the presence of the revision petitioner herein, the said room ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efence side. After appreciating the evidence, the Court below convicted the accused and sentenced as stated above. Hence this revision. 8. In this case, there was seizure of labelled and unlabelled beedies. Further there was seizure of beedi tobacco. It can be seen that regarding the appreciation of the evidence, no illegality or perversity seen committed by the Courts below. But, at the very same time, the revision petitioner got a case that charge was not proper. The Court charge was as follows :- "That you, A1, engaged in the manufacture of beedies under licence No. L4.104/75 in the brand name of "Fakir Beedi" at your factory at Koppam, Palghat District during July, 1982 to January, 1987 stored unmanufactured tobacco for the manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any way concerns himself in transporting, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under this Act or any rule made thereunder; (c) fails to supply any information which he is required by rules made under this Act to supply, or (unless with a reasonable belief, the burden of proving which shall be upon him, that the information supplied by him is true) supplies false information; (d) attempts to commit or abets the commission of, any of the offences mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of this section; shall be punishable,- (i) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ala [1987 (1) KLT 421] is also not relevant on the facts of the case. Thus the only remaining point is regarding the sentence. The Court below awarded a minimum sentence of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default simple imprisonment for three months. 12. Considering the fact that the age of the revision petitioner who is accused No. 1. was given as 53 in the judgment and the case is that of the year 1990 and now we are in 2018 and for the last 28 years the case is therein and also considering the fact that the aged revision petitioner is suffering from various ailments, I feel that this can be treated as a special circumstance to give reduction in the minimum sentence awarded by the Court below as provided in the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
