Discharge in central excise prosecution refused where the record showed no reason to interfere at a partly heard stage.

Partners named in a central excise prosecution were not entitled to discharge where the complaint alleged illicit manufacture and removal of biris and evasion of duty in breach of the Central Excise Rules. The Magistrate had already examined the material and rejected the discharge petition, and the prosecution had reached a partly heard stage after four witnesses were examined. On the partnership deed and the record, the High Court found no infirmity requiring interference at that stage and upheld the refusal to discharge, while noting the accused's entitlement to a speedy trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petitioners, arrayed as partners in a central excise prosecution, were entitled to be discharged from the criminal proceedings.

Analysis: The complaint alleged illicit manufacture and removal of biris and evasion of central excise duty in contravention of the Central Excise Rules. The Magistrate had already considered the material and dismissed the discharge petition. The prosecution had examined four witnesses, and the case was at a partly heard stage. On the partnership deed and the record, the Court found no infirmity in the Magistrate's order warranting interference at that stage, while also observing that the accused were entitled to speedy trial.

Conclusion: The revision petitioners were not entitled to discharge, and the refusal to discharge them was upheld.

---