The court clarified the legality of supplementary complaints and the applicability of Section 9-AA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, holding that it is substantive law, not retrospective in operation, and invoking it for the period prior to its enactment would violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

( 1 ) ALLEGING evasion of payment of duty under the Central Excise and salt Act, 1944 ('act' for short) punishable under Sections 9 (1} and 9-AA of the Act, respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore on 27-7-1995 against m/s. India Tobacco Company Limited ('itc' for short) as the first accused and Ashok Bhatia, Director of ITC as the second accused. On the same day, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 9 (1) and 9-AA of the Act and directed issuing of summons to the said two accused. A case was registered at CC No. 1227 of 1995.

( 2 ) IN the very case CC No. 1227 of 1995 on 31-10-1995, respondent- complainant filed before the said learned Magistrate, what he termed 'supplementary complaint' under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure code alleging commission of the very offences punishable under Sections 9 (1) and 9-AA of the Act, but this time, apart from the above said two accused as A-1 and A-2, respondent arrayed A-3 to A-24 and several 01 hers connected with ITC in various capacities. That very day, i. e. , on 31-10-1995, the order-sheet would disclose that the learned Magistrate heard the complainant's Counsel, perused the supplementary complaint and the documents produced along with it, referred to the fact that cognizance had already been taken of the offences alleged in the said supplementary complaint, and then concluded that there were grounds to issue process to A-3 to A-24 mentioned in the supplementary complaint, and then directed issuing of summons to the said A-3 to A-24. This was done in the very CC No. 1227 of 1995.

( 3 ) THE acts of omission and commission attributed to the accused in the main, as well as in the supplementary complaint, related to the same set of acts of commission and omission for one single period, namely for the period from 1-10-1975 to 28-2-1983. In these criminal petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, some of the accused brought in by means of supplementary complaint, are seeking quashing of the same, they being A-3 to A-7 in Criminal Petition No. 1327 of 1996, A-9 to A-14, 16, 18 to 21, 23 and 24 in Criminal Petition no. 1328 of 1996. The original two accused, namely ITC and Ashok Bhatia have not questioned issuing of process against them.

( 4 ) I have heard at length Sri Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the two cases, and Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Additional central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent.

( 5 ) AT the outset, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in permitting the additional accused to be brought in by way of what the complainant calls 'supplementary complaint' is to be found fault with. Here was the original complaint against two accused filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the respondent. Learned Magistrate took cognizance. Complaint being from a public servant acting in discharge of his official duties, in view of clause (a) of the proviso to section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, complainant was not examined. On perusal of the complaint and the documents produced, learned magistrate found sufficient ground to proceed and a direction issued to issue process against two accused, namely, ITC and Ashok Bhatia for offences under Sections 9 and 9-AA of the Act. Thereafter, if any more accused were to be brought in, the only procedure known to law in a proceeding like the one that was there before the learned Magistrate, was by taking recourse to Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code and by invoking the said provision at the appropriate stage. There was no scope under any of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code for the complainant to go on filing supplementary complaint/s to bring in some accused at one point of time, and by the other supplementary complaint to bring i