9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1985 and the factory is situated at No.5, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi. Based on the intelligence gathered against the accused who were persistently and deliberately violating the provisions of Central Excise Act, the Officers belonging to the Central Excise Department visited the office premises and the factory, the second accused was present in the office. The third accused, who is in-charge of the factory, was available there. During the search of residential premises of the second accused, the Accountant Mr.J.Ganesh of the first accused company was questioned and, lot of self incriminating documents were found and seized. Further, from the residence of the third accused, 1738 kgs of non-duty paid printed polyester philaminated rolls valued at Rs. 2,52,010/- were found. Further, it was found that the accused were using second set of invoices, indicating removal of excusable goods to the tune of Rs. 21,23,113.40/-, without payment of duty. Thereafter, as per Central Excise Act, show cause notice was issued, adjudication proceedings were initiated, wherein, the accused persons evading duty was confirmed. In this regard, Commissioner of Central Excise passed an order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner herein on the ground that he had already retired from the partnership firm and hence, he was not competent to represent the second respondent firm. However, as per Section 305 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Corporation (herein the firm) may appoint a representative for the purpose of enquiry or trial and that such power available to the Company/Firm, but cannot be used by the prosecution to force anybody, to represent the firm. The Trial Court, on 24.08.2001, dismissed the petition filed by the respondent herein, against which, the respondent preferred a Revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.R.C.No.147 of 2002. The learned Principal Sessions Judge allowed the Revision by order dated 23.07.2003, setting aside the order of the trial Judge dated 24.08.2001. Against which, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.1256 of 2003 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 29.09.2011, elaborately discussed the case, considered Section 305(3) Cr.P.C., and given a finding that "the power conferred on the Court is to decide whether a person who appears as a representative of the company/firm is or is not a representative of the company or firm. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to bring the proposed party/Saradha, who is a partner of A1 firm and wife of Subbash, to represent the first accused firm. However, the Trial Court, on a wrong notion, dismissed the petition. The observation made by the High Court was on a different pretext. Further, he submitted that the petitioner himself produced partnership deed dated 24.10.1988. From the partnership deed, it is seen that Mr.Subbash(A2died), Mr. S.A.Khan(A3) and Ms. Saradha Subbash(Proposed party) were partners of M/s.Print Wraps(A1 Company). It is also seen that the petitioner had retired from the partnership firm on 06.10.1994 and after his retirement from the partnership firm, the remaining partners namely Subbash/A2 and his wife Ms.Saradha Subbash continued as partners of A1 Company. Now, the business of the first accused Firm is conducted by Saradha Subbash, existing partner. In view of the petitioner refusing to represent the A1 firm, the respondent filed a petition to bring Ms.Saradha Subbash as proposed party to represent the firm. It is for Ms.Saradha Subbash either to appear or to nominate a representative for A1 Firm. But the impleading petition was dismissed, on a wrong notion. Thereafter, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary course of post. Section 305 of Cr.P.C-Procedure when corporation or registered society is an accused- (i) In this section, "corporation" means an incorporated company or other body corporate, and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860(21 of 1860) (2) Where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation. (3) Where a representative of a corporation appears, any requirement of this Code that anything shall be done in the presence of the accused or shall be read or stated or explained to the accused, shall be construed as a requirement that thing shall be done in the presence of the representative or read or stated or explained to the representative, and any requirement that the accused shall be examined shall be construed as a requirement that the representative shall be examined. 4. Where a representative of a corporation does not appear, any such requirement as is referred to in sub-section (3) shall not apply. 5. Where a statement in writing purporting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
