9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (7) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the said Shanmugam Match Factory. The first respondent has been allowed by the Department to use approved trade label "The Golden Eagle" on the matches manufactured at Messers Shanmugam Match Factory. The matches manufactured at his premises can be removed outside the factory premises only under a gate pass after debiting the duty payable to the Central Government in the prescribed register and accounts maintained at the factory. The bundles also should be serially numbered and deposited in the store room of the factory before they are removed out of the premises on gate passes. 3. On 28-6-1972 at about 1 P.M. P.W. 1, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Gudiyatham along with his officers inspected Shanmugam Match Factory and chec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took him to their office and told him that they had inspected the factory and found certain unauthorised matches in the lumber room, and took his signatures in two blank papers stating that they were doing so only for his benefit. He also stated that the statement was not read out to him and that there were corrections in the statement. He further stated that he never kept matches in the lumber room and he had nothing to do with M.O. 1 series which were seized from the lumber room. He also stated that those matches were not manufactured in their factory. 7. The learned Sub-Magistrate, in his shabby judgment, gave very unsatisfactory reasons for acquitting the Respondents. He seems to be under the impression that since P. Ws. 2 and 3 turne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. 5 appears to have been obtained on a promise. It is very significant to note the following sentences in that statement which would vitiate the statement as voluntary confession. **** This statement would exonerate the Respondents as he (second Respondent) would state that in his absence, it was done by his servants and that the same mistake would not be repeated. It appears that the statement was obtained from the second respondent on a promise that no action would be taken against him, but with a warning that he should not repeat this again. I am therefore, of the view that Excise P. 5 far from incriminating the Respondent (Accused) exonerates them. So, on this view, I do not find, in spite of the shabby judgment of the Sub-Magistr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
