PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) THE 3 captioned revision petitions lay a challenge to the order dated 2. 5. 2001 passed by Shri Rakesh Kapoor, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and the consequential order dated 21. 7. 2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan magistrate framing charges against the petitioners.

( 2 ) VIDE order dated 2. 5. 2001, learned Additional Sessions Judge, delhi has partially allowed a revision filed by the State against the order dated 16. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate where-under learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not frame charges against the petitioners under Section 420 and Section 120-B IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had framed a charge against the petitioners only for the alleged offence under section 68 of the Punjab Excise Act.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated case of the prosecution was that m/s. G. M. Breweries Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) was a wholesale licensee for supply of whisky and rum. That the company was granted a licence to sell 3 brands of whisky and a brand of rum. That seeking renewal of the licence for the ensuing year, wrong sale figures were provided by the company for the year 1993-94. It was alleged that for the year 1993-94, the company falsely stated that it had sold 65700 cases of Reporters Ch. Whisky, 64100 cases of Target whisky and 32000 cases of Hotshot Rum. According to the prosecution the company has resorted to fabrication of record pertaining to the alleged sales. That by resorting to deception, the company had managed to obtain from the excise department the L-1 licence for the ensuing year and pursuant thereto had effected sale of liquor in Delhi.

( 4 ) PETITIONER S. Swaminathan is a chartered accountant who had issued a certificate to the company on 13. 7. 1994 which was submitted by the company to the excise officials while seeking renewal of the licence for the ensuing year. Allegation against him is of conspiring with the officers in charge of the affairs of the company to prepare false documents and based thereon seek a benefit from the excise authorities at Delhi, benefit being of renewal of the L-1 licence.

( 5 ) PETITIONERS Joseph Alphons and John William Almedia are stated to be the factory manager and the executive director of the company who are alleged to have been a part of the conspiracy and creators of the documents which were relied upon by the company while seeking renewal of the licence.

( 6 ) PETITIONERS S. Sawant and B. D. Rathod are excise officials in the state of Maharashtra and have been impleaded as accused inasmuch as they have statedly issued false documents to the company evidencing manufacture and sale of liquor by the company.

( 7 ) IT may be noted that the brewery of the appellant where liquor is brewed is in district Thane in the State of Maharashtra.

( 8 ) A 2 fold contention has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners. A 3rd submission pertaining to petitioner S. Swaminathan has been urged. The two common submissions pertaining to the petitioners are, firstly, that the Punjab Excise Act is a complete code and therefore prosecution, if at all, has to be restricted to the offences under the Punjab Excise Act. Thus, it is urged that no charge of cheating or criminal conspiracy under the penal code could be framed.

( 9 ) SECOND contention urged was that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to life and liberty which would include a right to fair trial. It was urged that as per law and Claue 3. 2 of the terms and conditions of the licence, the applicant was required to furnish export passes/evc issued by the excise authorities in the State where the brewery was situated. It was urged that the export certificates have to be statutorily maintained by the excise authorities. That on 12. 3. 1996, the investigating officer had seized 11 documents. Vide serial No. 9 the original certificate issued by the superintendent, State Excise Department, Thane, Maharashtra regarding sale figures

Click Here to Read the rest of this document