Back
2000 Supreme(Kar) 498
Karnataka High Court
Asstt.Collector of Central Excise (L and A) - Appellant
Versus
Fibre Foils (P) Ltd - Respondent
Decided On : 08-16-00
CRIMINAL APPEAL : 553 of 1996
RAJESH CHANDRA KUMAR, URVAL M.RAMANAND
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantial and voluntary evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in cases of alleged offences under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
Headnote:
Central Excise and Salt Act - Offence under S. 9(1) - S. 6, R. 174, R. 53, 9(1), 52(A), 173(B), 173(C), 226 - The court discussed the appellant's allegations against the respondents under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, focusing on the offence under S. 9(1) and the relevant sections S. 6, R. 174, R. 53, 52(A), 173(B), 173(C), and 226. The court analyzed the evidence, including statements and documents, to determine the guilt of the respondents and upheld the lower court's decision to acquit the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents alleging that they committed an offence under S. 9(1) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The respondents denied the charges, and after examining the evidence, the lower court acquitted them. The appellant appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statements and documents presented by the appellant were insufficient to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt. It upheld the lower court's decision to acquit the respondents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented by the appellant was sufficient to establish the guilt of the respondents under S. 9(1) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence, including statements and documents, was not substantial enough to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt. It emphasized the importance of voluntary and substantive evidence in establishing guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's decision to acquit the respondents.
( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent is the company where the 2nd respondent is the Managing Director and the 3rd respondent is the Regional Manager. The company has been manufacturing canister composite containers falling within tariff item No. 68 and the said containers are liable for payment of excise duty. The company held a licence and maintained statutory registers and paid the excise duty on the containers manufactured by it up to 20-6-1984. It is alleged that the respondents 2 and 3 with an intention to avoid payment of the excise duty by the company the 1st respondent, filed a classification list with the authorities falsely notifying that the company had employed only 9 workers and therefore, it is not liable for payment of excise duty. On 16-2-1995 the officers visited the factory of the respondent No. 1 and seized several incriminating documents which established that there were more than 10 workers for the period subsequent to 20-6-1984. It is the case of the appellant that the company had employed more than 10 workers and was within the definition of S. 2 (m) of the Factories Act. Despite the said fact, respondents 1 to 3 filed classification list and did not obtain the licence for manufacturing the containers and did not make entries in the registers as required under the Act. On the other hand, the respondents removed the goods without issuing gate pass and thereby contravened the provisions of Sec. 6, R. 174, R. 53, 9 (1), 52 (A), 173 (B), 173 (C) and 226 and thereby committed the offence punishable under S. 9 of the Act. The said complaint was registered in C. C. No. 71/88 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences at Bangalore. The respondents denied the charges and therefore, the appellant examined P. W. 1 and got marked through him Exs. P-1 to P-8. The respondents have not chosen to examine any witness or produce any document. After hearing the arguments, the learned Court below has come to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish the case against the respondents 1 to 3 and therefore, acting under S. 248 (1), Cr. P. C. acquitted them. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred this appeal.
( 3 ) HEARD Sri. Urval N. Ramanand learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Rajesh Chander Kumar for R. 1 to R. 3.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that respondents 2 and 3 have admitted their guilt before P. W. 1 and the statement recorded by the P. W. 1 is admissible in evidence and it does not require any corroboration to hold that the respondents 1 to 3 are guilty of the offence. He also further submitted that the documents produced in this case fully corroborate the statement made by P. W. 1 before the Court and also the admissions of R. 2 and R. 3 before P. W. 1. Therefore, the learned Court below has committed an error in acquitting the respondents.
( 5 ) REPELLING this argument, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that Ex. P-3 the statement of Tendulkar and Ex. P-4 the statement of N. K. Madhu when read, makes it clear that nowhere they have admitted the guilt. On the other hand, for each question they have given answers to indicate that they have not committed any offence. They have gone to the extent of saying that they have not appointed at any time 10 or more persons to hold that they are guilty of the offence. In addition to that, he submitted that the material documents which are in custody of P. W. 1 have not been produced before the Court for the reasons best known to P. W. 1. Except the oral testimony of P. W. 1, there is no other incriminating material against the respondents 1 to 3. The inspector who had visited the factory and reported the matter to P. W. 1 and seized the materials, has not been exa
