9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the provisions of the Manual, which provide for ample safeguards, have not been followed in the present case. In the circumstances, it would not be possible to pinpoint the exact stage at which the goods have been exchanged so as to saddle the liability on the applicant. It is also an admitted position that such negligence in following the provisions of the Manual is not on the part of the applicant. On an overall view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court looking to the nature of the offence alleged against the applicant and more particularly, in view of the fact that the first information report has been lodged on 15th February, 1985 and more than 20 years have elapsed thereafter, no fruitful purpose would be served by permittin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the instructions of the present applicant and the sealed packet containing the seized goods had been handed over to him. 3. According to the applicant who was working as Superintendent of Central Excise (Prevention) Branch at Junagadh at the relevant time, on 11th January, 1984 in the evening, the seized goods were brought to Junagadh and the sealed box was handed over to Cashier M.N. Solanki working in the, office of Assistant Collector of Customs and Excise at Junagadh who kept it in the shelf meant for storing valuables. The applicant was originally not named as an accused in the First Information Report but subsequently, at the time of filing the charge sheet, the applicant has been arraigned as the accused No. 6 in the charge sheet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n delivery of the said packet of seized goods from the Cashier by giving back the receipt so as to keep the said packet in the locker of the bank and the Cashier thereafter, destroyed the receipt. It is pointed out that the locker in the Bank was operated by the Range Superintendent of Central Excise, who is also the Custodian within the meaning of the instructions/guidelines of the Board. Thus, during the course of the entire transaction, the applicant does not come into the picture at any point of time. It is submitted that when the applicant has not handled the packet in question at any point of time, it is amply dear that he is in no manner involved with the offence in question. It is submitted that there is no material on record which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional Public Prosecutor has adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. 9. As can be seen from the First Information Report in question, the applicant herein was not arraigned as an accused in the First Information Report. Subsequently, it appears that during the course of investigation, the applicant's name has been revealed and accordingly he has been arraigned as accused No. 6 in the charge sheet. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that no specific allegations have been made against the applicant and there are general allegations to the effect that the accused have conspired to commit the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The learned advocate f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion. Besides, it appears that when the packet was handed over to the Range Superintendent on 22-2-84 he did not find any difference in the description in the inventory and the physical condition of the packet before keeping it in his custody/in the locker of the bank. It also appears that except the Range Superintendent, no other officer was authorised to operate the bank locker. One glaring omission in the proceedings is that at the time of giving open delivery of the seized goods, the Custodian did not follow the provisions of the Manual and more particularly clause 8 of the "Procedure for receipt, storage and disposal of seized/detained and confiscated Goods", which provides that while giving open delivery the presence of the Seizing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the packet, no officer had asked for the same till 22-2-84. That the applicant was neither responsible nor liable to maintain the seized goods in safe and proper condition. However, the said averments have not been controverted by the respondents. 11. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that the provisions of the Manual, which provide for ample safeguards, have not been followed in the present case. In the circumstances, it would not be possible to pinpoint the exact stage at which the goods have been exchanged so as to saddle the liability on the applicant. It is also an admitted position that such negligence in following the provisions of the Manual is not on the part of the applicant. On an overall view of the matter, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
