Fair opportunity for pre-charge evidence and no statutory sanction required in excise prosecution; complaint restored for trial proceedings.

A complainant in an excise prosecution must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to complete pre-charge evidence, especially where several witnesses and documents are listed. Closing that evidence after only two opportunities was treated as an improper exercise of jurisdiction, and the discharge based on that closure was not sustainable. Prior sanction was not required as a condition precedent to filing the complaint, because no statutory sanction requirement was shown; an internal departmental circular could not substitute for statutory authority. The complaint was restored to the trial court for completion of pre-charge evidence, with one further opportunity granted to the complainant.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Magistrate was justified in closing the complainant's pre-charge evidence after only two opportunities, and (ii) whether prosecution required prior sanction under the governing excise law.

Issue (i): whether the Magistrate was justified in closing the complainant's pre-charge evidence after only two opportunities

Analysis: The complaint involved serious allegations under the excise law and the complainant had produced a list of several witnesses and documents. The order closing evidence was passed after the complainant was given only limited opportunity, without adequately considering the nature of the case or whether some further opportunity could be granted on terms. In these circumstances, the refusal to allow the complainant reasonable time to complete pre-charge evidence was held to be an improper exercise of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The closure of pre-charge evidence was not justified and the order based on such closure could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether prosecution required prior sanction under the governing excise law

Analysis: No statutory requirement of sanction for filing the complaint was pointed out. The departmental circular relied upon was treated as an internal administrative instruction governing steps before prosecution and not as a source of statutory sanction. The record also showed approval for launching prosecution. The discharge was not sustainable on the supposed absence of sanction.

Conclusion: Prior sanction was not required as a condition precedent to the complaint.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court interfered with the discharge order, restored the complaint to the trial court for completion of pre-charge evidence, and directed that the complainant be given only one further opportunity to lead the entire evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the excise law, a complainant should be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to complete material pre-charge evidence, and an internal departmental circular cannot be treated as a statutory requirement of sanction for prosecution.

---