9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on simultaneously and finding in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the criminal proceedings.A prosecution can be launched even after the completion of adjudication. Since the offence under section 9 (1A) Excise Act is cognizable and nonbailable and is grievous in nature, hence this Court does not deem it congruous to interfere in such matters. The bail application filed on behalf of the applicant stands rejected. Whether the benefit of Section 436-A Cr.P.C. can be extended to the applicant to release him on bail merely because he has served half of the maximum sentence prescribed under sections 9, 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - HELD THAT:- The explanation to Section 436-A Cr.P.C. places a restriction that in case there is a delay in proceeding caused by the accused, the period of detention shall be excluded for granting bail - a person cannot claim as a matter of right to be released on bail merely because he was under detention for half of the maximum sentence prescribed, as when there is lapse on the part of the accused to delay the proceeding, such benefit will not be extended to him. The applicant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 436-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g goods without payment of duty clandestinely. Hon ble Supreme Court has rejected the bail application of the applicant endorsing the order passed by this Court. All the Departmental Officers of the case have already been examined by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate as Additional District and Sessions Court, Meerut had directed the lower court to examine only material witnesses of the case and not to examine all witnesses and now finally evidence of seven witnesses have been concluded and the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses have been afforded to the defence counsel. However, the defence counsel was insisting for examination of all the witnesses of the case. Learned counsel for Union of India further submits that demand of central excise duty of ₹ 2,63,84,15,357/- along with interest imposing penalty has been served upon the applicant, but no statutory appeal has been preferred under the Central Excise Act, 1944 within stipulated period. There is clinching evidence against the applicant, but there is no whisper of payment of the huge amount by the applicant, who is the main accused. The applicant had also feigned illness and made an attempt to escape fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and cleared by the Unit. The records relating to the attendance of the employees as well as procurement of raw materials for the manufacturing of pan masala along with some finished and unfinished goods were available in the Unit. In the light of above submission, it transpires that the applicant evaded the excise duty by procuring the raw material and also not accounting the clandestine and surreptitious production in the statutory books. The clandestinely manufactured goods were supplied in the market without cover of lawful documents.The applicant is the master mind and beneficiary of entire scheme of duty evasion . The applicant had knowingly and willingly made distance in order to create a veil and to escape legal liabilities cast upon him. According to section 9AA of Central Excise Act, every person who at the time, the offence was committed was in charge shall be severally and jointly liable for being prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. There is nothing in the Act that the prosecution depends upon the result of the adjudication. Two proceedings are quite independent . The finding in one is not conclusive in the other proceedings. Both can go on simultaneously and fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained during the period of explanation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under the law. Explanation:- In computing the period of detention under this Section for granting bail the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded. The explanation to Section 436-A Cr.P.C. places a restriction that in case there is a delay in proceeding caused by the accused, the period of detention shall be excluded for granting bail. Therefore, a person cannot claim as a matter of right to be released on bail merely because he was under detention for half of the maximum sentence prescribed, as when there is lapse on the part of the accused to delay the proceeding, such benefit will not be extended to him. This Court is conscious of the fact that amid Covid-19 pandemic all the courts are highly disturbed and on account of which trial proceedings are held up due to various reasons. Hon ble Supreme Court was also conscious of the facts that overcrowding in jail amid covid-19 outbreak would seriously affect the prisoners languishing in jail either as under-trial or as convicts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
