Special statute offences without a separate procedure are triable by criminal courts; public prosecutor representation and conditional bail were also addressed.
Where a special statute creating an offence does not prescribe a separate forum or procedure, trial proceeds under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the competent criminal court rather than departmental authorities. The text also states that a Public Prosecutor or Additional Advocate General cannot ordinarily appear against the State for an accused unless the appointment specifically authorises such representation. On bail, temporary conditional relief was considered appropriate in view of the applicant's partial deposit, custody period, admitted liability, and undertaking to secure the balance, subject to strict safeguards including security, territorial restriction, periodic appearance, and automatic cancellation on default.
Issues: (i) Whether the offence under Section 89 read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994 was triable by criminal courts or by the Central Excise authorities; (ii) whether the Additional Advocate General/Public Prosecutor was competent to represent the accused against the State; and (iii) whether the applicant was entitled to conditional temporary bail.
Issue (i): Whether the offence under Section 89 read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994 was triable by criminal courts or by the Central Excise authorities.
Analysis: The Finance Act, 1994 did not contain any specific provision prescribing the forum or manner of trial for the offence. In the absence of such a special procedure, the governing rule under Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that offences under any other law are to be investigated, inquired into and tried in accordance with the Code. The reasoning was reinforced by the settled principle that, unless the special statute expressly provides otherwise, the Criminal Procedure Code supplies the procedural framework for trial by criminal courts.
Conclusion: The offence was triable by criminal courts and not by the Commissioner, Central Excise or departmental officers.
Issue (ii): Whether the Additional Advocate General/Public Prosecutor was competent to represent the accused against the State.
Analysis: The prosecution of the offence was treated as a matter involving the State's criminal justice administration. On that footing, the office of the Public Prosecutor was not competent to appear against the State in criminal proceedings. The view was also supported by the established principle that a Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor cannot appear for the accused against the State unless the appointment specifically permits such representation.
Conclusion: The Additional Advocate General/Public Prosecutor was not competent to represent the applicant against the State.
Issue (iii): Whether the applicant was entitled to conditional temporary bail.
Analysis: The applicant had already deposited part of the service tax liability and offered to secure the balance by post-dated cheques within a stipulated period. The Court considered the period of custody, the admitted liability, the amount still outstanding, and the undertaking furnished by the applicant. On that basis, it found it appropriate to grant one opportunity by imposing strict conditions, including security, territorial restriction, periodic appearance, and automatic cancellation on default.
Conclusion: Conditional temporary bail was granted on the stated terms.
Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional objections were resolved in favour of criminal court trial under the Code, and the applicant was granted temporary bail only on strict financial and appearance conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creating an offence does not provide a specific procedure or forum for trial, the offence is to be tried according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the competent criminal court.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
