9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Special Public Prosecutor For the Respondents : Mr.N.Dilipkumar (in Crl.A.(MD)No.62, of 2009 and Crl.A.(MD)Nos.4, 31 and 32 of 2008), No appearance (in Crl.A.(MD)No.62 of 2009), Mr.C.Ramesh (in Crl.A.(MD)No.307 of 2008) COMMON JUDGMENT The Company in Crl.A.(MD)No.307 of 2008 is an Iron Grill Manufacturing Company. In all other cases, the companies are Spinning Mills. The allegation against them is that they indulged in central excise duty evasion. Therefore, prosecution was launched against the companies and also the Directors who were in-charge of the affairs of the companies. After the complaints filed by the Excise Department through its Authorised Officer were taken on file, summons were issued to the accused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscated or any other action has been taken against him for the same act which constitutes the offence' (III)the fact that the accused was not the principal offender and was acting merely as a carrier of goods or otherwise was a secondary party in the commission of the offence; (IV) the age of the accused." 4.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Department would contend that the reasons assigned by the Court below cannot be called as special and adequate reasons within the meaning of proviso to Section 9 of the Act. I am in substantial agreement with the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor. But then, the question that arise for consideration is whether I should still interfere in the matter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Hon'ble High Court, R2-P.Bala Krishnan undertakes to pay a further sum of Rs. 50,000/-. It is seen that the Court below had levied only a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Accordingly, R2-P.Bala Krishnan is directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- as fine to the credit of C.C.No.2 of 2007, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused in Crl.A.(MD)No.31 of 2008 would submit that the second respondent-P.Subramaniam is no more. Therefore, this appeal has to be dismissed as far as R2 is concerned. He further submitted that without prejudice their contention in the pending appeal before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
